We decided to close the project in 2022 for two main reasons:
We looked at engagement metrics and calculated how much throughput of volunteers and projects we would need to achieve a take-off trajectory on this metaproject and concluded it would take much active effort, partnerships and acceptance of the wider EA community. Given that this was a volunteer project we thought the odds of this happening were low.
CEA also communicated with us that they were considering including something similar in the forum. They ended up decided against it at the time (focusing on individual profiles more so founders could find each other), but in the meantime our volunteers became demotivated.
We also found many difficulties around project vetting, volunteer management and upkeep that made it a hard initiative to continue. Many of us still strongly believe more entrepreneurship within the EA community would be beneficial and that something like this metaproject would be very helpful. I am eager to discuss new metaprojects like this with anyone that wants to try to launch one and to communicate further leassons learned.
This failure mode seemed similar in nature to this listed mistake on the CEA website. Specifically:
We think we should have taken on fewer new projects, set clearer expectations for them, and ended unsuccessful projects earlier.
Running this wide array of projects has sometimes resulted in a lack of organizational focus, poor execution, and a lack of follow-through. It also meant that we were staking a claim on projects that might otherwise have been taken on by other individuals or groups that could have done a better job than we were doing (for example, by funding good projects that we were slow to fund).
OTOH, it may not have caused harm in this case if 1) or others were sufficient reasons to close the project without 2), or if this wasn’t a project that could have been done better than CEA.
I’d like to discuss a similar “metaproject” I have in the works. Currently my goal for a “minimum viable product” is just the list, with volunteer matching added later if it works, but also including smaller “quick win” projects and immediate contributions that could be made. Would you be willing to share further and discuss lessons learned on this one?
Just a quick update on this project (8 Oct 2023):
We decided to close the project in 2022 for two main reasons:
We looked at engagement metrics and calculated how much throughput of volunteers and projects we would need to achieve a take-off trajectory on this metaproject and concluded it would take much active effort, partnerships and acceptance of the wider EA community. Given that this was a volunteer project we thought the odds of this happening were low.
CEA also communicated with us that they were considering including something similar in the forum. They ended up decided against it at the time (focusing on individual profiles more so founders could find each other), but in the meantime our volunteers became demotivated.
We also found many difficulties around project vetting, volunteer management and upkeep that made it a hard initiative to continue. Many of us still strongly believe more entrepreneurship within the EA community would be beneficial and that something like this metaproject would be very helpful. I am eager to discuss new metaprojects like this with anyone that wants to try to launch one and to communicate further leassons learned.
This failure mode seemed similar in nature to this listed mistake on the CEA website. Specifically:
OTOH, it may not have caused harm in this case if 1) or others were sufficient reasons to close the project without 2), or if this wasn’t a project that could have been done better than CEA.
I’d like to discuss a similar “metaproject” I have in the works. Currently my goal for a “minimum viable product” is just the list, with volunteer matching added later if it works, but also including smaller “quick win” projects and immediate contributions that could be made. Would you be willing to share further and discuss lessons learned on this one?