This leads me to ask: what do you envision should happen, if the community finds funding decisions to be bad, or points to a new appointment being a very bad idea, for example. What’s the mechanism of accountability?
What currently happens is that people talk in private and then later post on the forum about it. This seems reasonable.
What, in your eyes, gives community members a feeling of belonging and cooperation if, de facto, funding and management decisions don’t take them into account in any way?
I don’t think community opinions aren’t taken into account. I think fund managers are affected by community discourse. But they aren’t bound to it. I feel belonging and cooperation for all the other reasons I state. I don’t need to be [making decisions] to feel involved.
If enlarging and diversifying the community to include more backgrounds and perspectives is important to making the right decisions for humanity’s benefit (which I definitely believe) - what would make funders take these views into account?
I’m interested in better decisions and I agree that it seems better to have more diverse groups for error correction. Firstly, those people can be part of the error correction systems I mention. Secondly they can gain prestige and then work at funding orgs.
What currently happens is that people talk in private and then later post on the forum about it. This seems reasonable.
I don’t think community opinions aren’t taken into account. I think fund managers are affected by community discourse. But they aren’t bound to it. I feel belonging and cooperation for all the other reasons I state. I don’t need to be [making decisions] to feel involved.
I’m interested in better decisions and I agree that it seems better to have more diverse groups for error correction. Firstly, those people can be part of the error correction systems I mention. Secondly they can gain prestige and then work at funding orgs.
Do those answer you questions?