We might be quibbling a bit over what “really valuable” means. I agree that CEA definitely could have prioritized these higher, and likely would have if they cared about it much more.
I think they would be happy to have evaluations done if they were very inexpensive or free, for whatever that’s worth. This is much better than with many orgs, who would try to oppose evaluations even if they are free; but perhaps it is suboptimal.
I think only doing something if it’s free/inexpensive is almost the opposite of thinking something is ‘really valuable’, so that’s far from a quibble (almost the opposite because, as you point out, actively being against something is the actual opposite).
Ozzie, I think you and I agree on CEA’s stance about public evaluations (not actively opposed to them, but mainly interested only if they are free or very inexpensive to execute). My interpretation of that position is largely in line with Rebecca’s though.
We might be quibbling a bit over what “really valuable” means. I agree that CEA definitely could have prioritized these higher, and likely would have if they cared about it much more.
I think they would be happy to have evaluations done if they were very inexpensive or free, for whatever that’s worth. This is much better than with many orgs, who would try to oppose evaluations even if they are free; but perhaps it is suboptimal.
I think only doing something if it’s free/inexpensive is almost the opposite of thinking something is ‘really valuable’, so that’s far from a quibble (almost the opposite because, as you point out, actively being against something is the actual opposite).
Ozzie, I think you and I agree on CEA’s stance about public evaluations (not actively opposed to them, but mainly interested only if they are free or very inexpensive to execute). My interpretation of that position is largely in line with Rebecca’s though.