I like 55% agree and it’s updating me to think about what spots I’m taking by attending. I am slightly worried about a) the logistics of organising a massive open conference, and b) potentially getting less value aligned / EA involved people and it negatively impacting the community.
As one of the EAGxBerkeley organisers, we’re trying to figure out how to do outreach to those early level EAs and those that are very EA aligned without knowing what EA—two groups I think would get the most benefit out of an EAGx. Do you (I mean this in a general sense for anyone to answer) have any suggestions for how to do outreach to those not deep in the EA radar so we can make it more of an ‘open’ conference?
Just making sure you saw Eli Nathan’s comment saying that this year plus next year they didn’t/won’t hit venue capacity so you’re not taking anybody’s spot
I’m a big fan of different “tracks” which are appealing to people in different stages of their EA journey. Let people self-select into things that are more valuable.
E.g. “career journeys”are more valuable if you’re new to EA but interested in EA career paths, whereas a in-depth discussion on a obscure critique may be less interesting.
how you advertise what the conference is probably matters—you probably want to think about the limitations of the EA brand to attract such people. Maybe we need a non EAG branded conference to get really promising people who are more skeptical of EA.
That being said, how can we build on the messaging to be more informative?
E.g. give a sample agenda, talk about the benefit people can receive (how can we frame the value of 1-1s to be more intuitive and attractive to newcomers)
do a lot of pre-event programming that could be Q&As or just a sample of the conference to get people interested and excited to sign up (maybe 2 months before).
For accepted attendees, have some programming leading up to conference to prep them on what it’s like, how to get value, make plans, engage in conversations.
it’s updating me to think about what spots I’m taking by attending.
I have had concerns about this, and seen similar concerns among others even applying to our national retreat. An easy solution would be to add a box on the application form “I want to come, but don’t want to crowd out somebody else”—or perhaps better wording! These people are accepted last, after all other people hitting the-bar-for-entry are accepted.
Do you (I mean this in a general sense for anyone to answer) have any suggestions for how to do outreach to those not deep in the EA radar so we can make it more of an ‘open’ conference?
Could be worthwhile reaching out to Santeri from EA Finland about this, since he’s running a hackathon for 100′s of persons. As I understand, have nice website and graphics, but all the work is done in person conversations/flyering at the uni , until eventually you build enough of a reputation over the years that it just spreads by word of mouth (Do things that don’t scale)
On this last point, I think this is likely what we are starting to see with EAGx’s—I think EAGxBerlin is gonna be pretty huge
I like 55% agree and it’s updating me to think about what spots I’m taking by attending. I am slightly worried about a) the logistics of organising a massive open conference, and b) potentially getting less value aligned / EA involved people and it negatively impacting the community.
As one of the EAGxBerkeley organisers, we’re trying to figure out how to do outreach to those early level EAs and those that are very EA aligned without knowing what EA—two groups I think would get the most benefit out of an EAGx. Do you (I mean this in a general sense for anyone to answer) have any suggestions for how to do outreach to those not deep in the EA radar so we can make it more of an ‘open’ conference?
Just making sure you saw Eli Nathan’s comment saying that this year plus next year they didn’t/won’t hit venue capacity so you’re not taking anybody’s spot
Thanks!! Good to know :)
I’m a big fan of different “tracks” which are appealing to people in different stages of their EA journey. Let people self-select into things that are more valuable.
E.g. “career journeys”are more valuable if you’re new to EA but interested in EA career paths, whereas a in-depth discussion on a obscure critique may be less interesting.
how you advertise what the conference is probably matters—you probably want to think about the limitations of the EA brand to attract such people. Maybe we need a non EAG branded conference to get really promising people who are more skeptical of EA.
That being said, how can we build on the messaging to be more informative?
E.g. give a sample agenda, talk about the benefit people can receive (how can we frame the value of 1-1s to be more intuitive and attractive to newcomers)
do a lot of pre-event programming that could be Q&As or just a sample of the conference to get people interested and excited to sign up (maybe 2 months before).
For accepted attendees, have some programming leading up to conference to prep them on what it’s like, how to get value, make plans, engage in conversations.
Of the cuff, feel free to ping me for more!
I have had concerns about this, and seen similar concerns among others even applying to our national retreat. An easy solution would be to add a box on the application form “I want to come, but don’t want to crowd out somebody else”—or perhaps better wording! These people are accepted last, after all other people hitting the-bar-for-entry are accepted.
Could be worthwhile reaching out to Santeri from EA Finland about this, since he’s running a hackathon for 100′s of persons. As I understand, have nice website and graphics, but all the work is done in person conversations/flyering at the uni , until eventually you build enough of a reputation over the years that it just spreads by word of mouth (Do things that don’t scale)
On this last point, I think this is likely what we are starting to see with EAGx’s—I think EAGxBerlin is gonna be pretty huge