Thanks! I think that a lot of this is an area for the board more than for me (I’ll flag this thread to them for input, but obviously they might not reply). I and the board are tracking how we can best scale governance (and aware that it might be hard to do this just with the current board), and we’ve also considered the ombudsman model (and not yet rejected it, though I think that many versions of it might not really change things too much—I think the board do care about CEA following through on its responsibilites to the community).
Re the EA twitter account: CEA does operate that account, and I think that we inappropriately used it for sharing CEA job ads. We’re changing this now. Thanks for pointing it out. I think that we run some other EA social media accounts, but I’m not aware of any other projects that we do where it’s not clear that CEA runs them.
I think the board do care about CEA following through on its responsibilites to the community
I’m glad this is something the board cares about. That said, I think the board will have difficulty keeping CEA accountable for those responsibilities without 1) a specific board member being explicitly assigned this and 2) an explicit list of what those responsibilities so that CEA, its board, and the community all have the same understanding (and so non-obvious things, like the Twitter account, don’t get missed).
Related to CEA’s board: does CEA have any policies around term-limits for board members? This is a fairly common practice for nonprofits and I’m curious about how CEA thinks about the pros and cons.
My sense is that the board is likely to remain fairly stable, and fairly consistently interested in this.
I also don’t really see why democracy is better on the front of “checking that an org consistently follows through on what it says it’s going to do”: all of your arguments about board members would also seem like they could apply to any electorate. There might be other benefts of a democracy, of course (though I personally think that community democracy would be the wrong governance structure for CEA, for reasons stated elsewhere).
My sense is that the board is likely to remain fairly stable, and fairly consistently interested in this.
Would you trust a governing body on the basis of someone you don’t even personally know saying that their sense is that it’s alright?
all of your arguments about board members would also seem like they could apply to any electorate.
Only for a limited time period—elected officials have to stand for re-election, and separation and balance of powers help keep them in check in the meantime. Changes in the community are also reflected by new elections.
I personally think that community democracy would be the wrong governance structure for CEA, for reasons stated elsewhere
Could you please point to that ‘elsewhere’? I don’t think I’ve encountered your views on the matter.
Would you trust a governing body on the basis of someone you don’t even personally know saying that their sense is that it’s alright?
Probably not—I understand if this doesn’t update you much. I would suggest that you look at public records on what our board members do/have done, and see if you think that suggests that they would hold us accountable for this sort of thing. I admit that’s a costly thing to do. I would also suggest that you look at what CEA has done, especially during the most recent (most relevant) periods—this post highlights most of our key mistakes, and this sequence might give you a sense of positive things we achieved. You could also look at comments/posts I’ve written in order to get a sense of whether you can trust me.
I hope that helps a bit!
Only for a limited time period—elected officials have to stand for re-election, and separation and balance of powers help keep them in check in the meantime. Changes in the community are also reflected by new elections.
My point is that the electorate (not the elected representatives) can leave/new people can join the community. Also their opinions can change. So I don’t think it’s a very robust mechanism for the specific thing of making sure an organization follows through on things it said it would do. I think you’re right that your third point does apply though.
Could you please point to that ‘elsewhere’? I don’t think I’ve encountered your views on the matter.
I don’t literally argue for that position, but I think that the last section of this comment touches on my views.
Ok, I now get what you mean about the electorate. But I think (it’s been some time) my point was about responsibilities to the community rather than on following through.
Regarding the last point, I’m a bit confused because in parallel to this thread we’re discussing another one where I quoted this specific bit exactly, and you replied that it’s not about who should govern CEA, but one meta-level up from that (who decides on the governance structure).
Ah cool, yeah agree that democracy is pretty strongly designed around responsibilities to the community, so it’s probably better than an unelected board on that dimension.
The final paragraph in the comment I just linked to is about one-meta-level-up. The penultimate and antipenultimate paragraphs are just about the ideal governance structure. Sorry, that’s maybe a bit unclear.
Thanks! I think that a lot of this is an area for the board more than for me (I’ll flag this thread to them for input, but obviously they might not reply). I and the board are tracking how we can best scale governance (and aware that it might be hard to do this just with the current board), and we’ve also considered the ombudsman model (and not yet rejected it, though I think that many versions of it might not really change things too much—I think the board do care about CEA following through on its responsibilites to the community).
Re the EA twitter account: CEA does operate that account, and I think that we inappropriately used it for sharing CEA job ads. We’re changing this now. Thanks for pointing it out. I think that we run some other EA social media accounts, but I’m not aware of any other projects that we do where it’s not clear that CEA runs them.
I’m glad this is something the board cares about. That said, I think the board will have difficulty keeping CEA accountable for those responsibilities without 1) a specific board member being explicitly assigned this and 2) an explicit list of what those responsibilities so that CEA, its board, and the community all have the same understanding (and so non-obvious things, like the Twitter account, don’t get missed).
Related to CEA’s board: does CEA have any policies around term-limits for board members? This is a fairly common practice for nonprofits and I’m curious about how CEA thinks about the pros and cons.
On 1), there is a specific board member assigned to assessing CEA’s performance (which would include this). I agree that 2) is somewhat missing.
I’m not aware of a policy on term limits for the Effective Ventures board, and can’t speak for them.
Re: 1, can you share which board member is responsible for this?
Re: 2, is this something CEA plans to work on in say the next 3 months? If not, would it help if a volunteer did an initial draft?
Sure, it’s currently Claire Zabel, but it was Nick Beckstead until July.
We don’t plan to do this in the next 3 months. If a volunteer did a good initial draft, I think there’s an 80% chance that we use that in some way.
I hope that’s true, but there are at least two problems with that:
It’s impossible for the community to verify
It can very easily change as:
Board members leave and new ones join
Board members’ opinions on this change
Most importantly, the community itself changes in ways not reflected by the board
As far as I can see, only democratic mechanisms guarantee accountability that stays stable over time.
My sense is that the board is likely to remain fairly stable, and fairly consistently interested in this.
I also don’t really see why democracy is better on the front of “checking that an org consistently follows through on what it says it’s going to do”: all of your arguments about board members would also seem like they could apply to any electorate. There might be other benefts of a democracy, of course (though I personally think that community democracy would be the wrong governance structure for CEA, for reasons stated elsewhere).
I’m not sure I follow.
Would you trust a governing body on the basis of someone you don’t even personally know saying that their sense is that it’s alright?
Only for a limited time period—elected officials have to stand for re-election, and separation and balance of powers help keep them in check in the meantime. Changes in the community are also reflected by new elections.
Could you please point to that ‘elsewhere’? I don’t think I’ve encountered your views on the matter.
Probably not—I understand if this doesn’t update you much. I would suggest that you look at public records on what our board members do/have done, and see if you think that suggests that they would hold us accountable for this sort of thing. I admit that’s a costly thing to do. I would also suggest that you look at what CEA has done, especially during the most recent (most relevant) periods—this post highlights most of our key mistakes, and this sequence might give you a sense of positive things we achieved. You could also look at comments/posts I’ve written in order to get a sense of whether you can trust me.
I hope that helps a bit!
My point is that the electorate (not the elected representatives) can leave/new people can join the community. Also their opinions can change. So I don’t think it’s a very robust mechanism for the specific thing of making sure an organization follows through on things it said it would do. I think you’re right that your third point does apply though.
I don’t literally argue for that position, but I think that the last section of this comment touches on my views.
Ok, I now get what you mean about the electorate. But I think (it’s been some time) my point was about responsibilities to the community rather than on following through.
Regarding the last point, I’m a bit confused because in parallel to this thread we’re discussing another one where I quoted this specific bit exactly, and you replied that it’s not about who should govern CEA, but one meta-level up from that (who decides on the governance structure).
Ah cool, yeah agree that democracy is pretty strongly designed around responsibilities to the community, so it’s probably better than an unelected board on that dimension.
The final paragraph in the comment I just linked to is about one-meta-level-up. The penultimate and antipenultimate paragraphs are just about the ideal governance structure. Sorry, that’s maybe a bit unclear.