Thanks! So is the idea that this person would be some high-number employee of EV, but you don’t think of it that way? And instead EA Funds and the other orgs legally within EV think of themselves as separate organizations with their own employee counts?
And instead EA Funds and the other orgs legally within EV think of themselves as separate organizations with their own employee counts?
Yes, I don’t want to speak for Caleb (the only existing FT employee of EA Funds[1]) and I certainly don’t want to speak for other orgs, but I think the second or third employee at EA Funds should think of themselves as being a low-number employee at EA Funds, rather than the 200th or whatever employee of EV. Whereas eg the 50th employee at Rethink Priorities should meaningfully think of themselves as the 50th employee of RP, even if they’re the first member of a new team at RP.
De facto, EA Funds does the following things independently or almost independently of EV:
fundraise
branding
set organizational strategy and theory of change
hire
decide which offices to work at
if we ever have work retreats, EA Funds will decide where the retreat is, and there’s no expectation that non-EA Funds EV people will be invited (and similarly other EV org retreats don’t invite us)
organizational communication in its own Slack
internal processes etc
set non-executive pay rates
Though I think it needs to be reviewed by EV
pay contractors, including ones who work at other EV orgs
The following things are shared:
The default benefits package
payroll, accounting
legal risk (which in the last year has been quite frustrating)
all my high-level posts written in a professional capacity for EA Funds is reviewed by EV lawyer(s).
certain shared services that might be easier to do as part of EV, but we still pay for them separately
in particular, we currently pay EV Ops for grant disbursement (and EV Ops people won’t consider themselves as working for EA Funds, and vice versa)
We also pay tech people who work for other EV orgs like CEA for website maintenance etc.
The closest non-EA analogy I can think of is Alphabet. I expect people at the flagship Alphabet subcompany (Google)shouldn’t have much of a mental distinction between Alphabet and Google, but e.g., the 20th employee at Wing would be very mistaken if they approach joining Wing and expecting a “big company” vibe. Similarly, “flagship” orgs within EV like CEA and EV Operations are likely more closely connected to the EV brand and organizational center etc, but people at more peripheral projects like GovAI and Asterisk should mostly not think of themselves as EV employees first, except in the legal sense. (Likewise, Epoch and Apollo employees probably do not think of themselves as Rethink Priorities employees) And the reality is that the Alphabet <>Wing connection is in many ways stronger than EV <> EA Funds (eg employees of Alphabet subsidiaries probably code in the same repo, get paid in the same stock, etc).
EA Funds is a bit of an edge case because it originally grew out of CEA before spinning out. It also has “EA” in the name. We internally do not think of ourselves as particularly tied to EV, and it’s rather frustrating (from my personal perspective) to get most of the costs of being in a large organization with very few of the benefits, and if external people continue to primarily think of us as an “EV project” I think this itself will be a good reason (though not necessarily dispositive) to spin out completely and rebrand, though of course that is also costly.
Presumably the EV board could fire you all though if it wanted to, and my understanding is that at least in the past they had a veto on grants. If the buck ultimately stops with them, that seems like a pretty meaningful way in which you are part of EV.
Yes, this is a good point re “firing”. I’m confused about how much it matters when there’s de jure power that’s not in fact exercised [1]but I agree that in principle there’s some real oversight responsibilities from EV. Which from an individual perspective is rather rough; EV can fire us but doesn’t give us money and has no obligation to keep us employed. At some point I’d be interested in interviewing donors about whether they perceive the costs of such oversight is greater or lower than the benefits; I can see it go either way. [2]
From the donor perspective on the one hand having a smaller number of entities to model makes it easier to decide whether to donate, on the other hand having a board to complain to in case of abuse etc seems valuable for mitigating certain types of downside risks.
As another example of this, apparently the EV board banned GWWC from advertising, which suggests they would be willing to exercise that power over your fundraising and branding.
*”and” should be “at,” sorry.
Thanks! So is the idea that this person would be some high-number employee of EV, but you don’t think of it that way? And instead EA Funds and the other orgs legally within EV think of themselves as separate organizations with their own employee counts?
Yes, I don’t want to speak for Caleb (the only existing FT employee of EA Funds[1]) and I certainly don’t want to speak for other orgs, but I think the second or third employee at EA Funds should think of themselves as being a low-number employee at EA Funds, rather than the 200th or whatever employee of EV. Whereas eg the 50th employee at Rethink Priorities should meaningfully think of themselves as the 50th employee of RP, even if they’re the first member of a new team at RP.
De facto, EA Funds does the following things independently or almost independently of EV:
fundraise
branding
set organizational strategy and theory of change
hire
decide which offices to work at
if we ever have work retreats, EA Funds will decide where the retreat is, and there’s no expectation that non-EA Funds EV people will be invited (and similarly other EV org retreats don’t invite us)
organizational communication in its own Slack
internal processes etc
set non-executive pay rates
Though I think it needs to be reviewed by EV
pay contractors, including ones who work at other EV orgs
The following things are shared:
The default benefits package
payroll, accounting
legal risk (which in the last year has been quite frustrating)
all my high-level posts written in a professional capacity for EA Funds is reviewed by EV lawyer(s).
certain shared services that might be easier to do as part of EV, but we still pay for them separately
in particular, we currently pay EV Ops for grant disbursement (and EV Ops people won’t consider themselves as working for EA Funds, and vice versa)
We also pay tech people who work for other EV orgs like CEA for website maintenance etc.
The closest non-EA analogy I can think of is Alphabet. I expect people at the flagship Alphabet subcompany (Google)shouldn’t have much of a mental distinction between Alphabet and Google, but e.g., the 20th employee at Wing would be very mistaken if they approach joining Wing and expecting a “big company” vibe. Similarly, “flagship” orgs within EV like CEA and EV Operations are likely more closely connected to the EV brand and organizational center etc, but people at more peripheral projects like GovAI and Asterisk should mostly not think of themselves as EV employees first, except in the legal sense. (Likewise, Epoch and Apollo employees probably do not think of themselves as Rethink Priorities employees) And the reality is that the Alphabet <>Wing connection is in many ways stronger than EV <> EA Funds (eg employees of Alphabet subsidiaries probably code in the same repo, get paid in the same stock, etc).
EA Funds is a bit of an edge case because it originally grew out of CEA before spinning out. It also has “EA” in the name. We internally do not think of ourselves as particularly tied to EV, and it’s rather frustrating (from my personal perspective) to get most of the costs of being in a large organization with very few of the benefits, and if external people continue to primarily think of us as an “EV project” I think this itself will be a good reason (though not necessarily dispositive) to spin out completely and rebrand, though of course that is also costly.
I’m a contractor. If I decide to be an employee, I’d be the 2nd employee.
Presumably the EV board could fire you all though if it wanted to, and my understanding is that at least in the past they had a veto on grants. If the buck ultimately stops with them, that seems like a pretty meaningful way in which you are part of EV.
Yes, this is a good point re “firing”. I’m confused about how much it matters when there’s de jure power that’s not in fact exercised [1]but I agree that in principle there’s some real oversight responsibilities from EV. Which from an individual perspective is rather rough; EV can fire us but doesn’t give us money and has no obligation to keep us employed. At some point I’d be interested in interviewing donors about whether they perceive the costs of such oversight is greater or lower than the benefits; I can see it go either way. [2]
I’m not aware of any cases other than CEA.
From the donor perspective on the one hand having a smaller number of entities to model makes it easier to decide whether to donate, on the other hand having a board to complain to in case of abuse etc seems valuable for mitigating certain types of downside risks.
Having the EV board as your board ≠ becoming a coworker of someone at 80k
There is an important sense that EA Funds is “”merely”″ a project of EV, and another important sense in which they are a ~2 person team
Fiscal sponsorship is pretty common
EV’s board has never (to my knowledge) fired an employee of an organization, but they have fired a CEO
This seems to me like the way they should behave (read Holden saying the same thing here)
As another example of this, apparently the EV board banned GWWC from advertising, which suggests they would be willing to exercise that power over your fundraising and branding.