EAG conference activity has grown dramatically, with EAGs now going over 1,500 people, and more EAG and EAGx conferences. Expenses and staff have all increased to support many more attendees.
The very CEA people who are responding here (and actively recruiting more people to get more/larger conferences), presided over this growth in conferences.
I can imagine that the increased size of EAGs faced some opposition. It’s plausible to me that the CEA people here, actively fought for the larger sizes (and increased management/risk).
In at least a few views, this seems opposite to “eliteness” and seems important to notice/mention.
I think the emotional cost of rejection is real and important. I think the post is about feeling like a member of a community, as opposed to acceptance at EAG itself.
It seems the OP didn’t want to go to EAGx conferences. This wasn’t mentioned in her OP.
Presumably, one reason the OP didn’t want to go to EAGx, was that they view these events as diluted, or not having the same value as an EAG[1].
But that view seems contrary to wanting to expand from “elite”, highly filtered EAGs. Instead, their choices suggests the issue is a personal one about fairness/meeting the bar for EAG.
The grandparent comment opens a thread criticizing eliteness or filtered EAG/CEA events. But that doesn’t seem to be consistent with the above.
BTW, I think views where EAGx are “lesser” are disappointing, because in some ways, EAGx conferences have greater opportunities for counterfactuals (there are more liminal or nascent EAs).
She responded to this concern here. She has been to an EAGx before and was and is open to going to others
When she talked to Amy (which is probably where you are getting the info and drawing conclusion from), it was not because she viewed them as lesser but because she had a scheduling conflict since she was a speaker at the AVA Summit.
Quick point of clarification: on the call, I recall Constance saying that her heart was set on EAG and that she was not interested in EAGx. Perhaps there was a miscommunication or I misunderstood, but that is the information I was working with throughout communications.
Reading the comment you link to, it doesn’t indicate having been to an EAGx before [edit: maybe a virtual event was indicated], but does indicate openness to going to others.
You are right she doesn’t mention it in the comment. But in the OP she mentioned she went to EAGx Virtual. See the “Rejoining the EA Community (Fall 2021)” section.
To be clear, I’m grateful for much of the work done by CEA and I’ve really enjoyed the conferences I’ve been to.
I guess here what I mean by “elitist” diverges from what Constance meant. Because indeed you’re getting more participants and there’s strong pushback against that. On the other hand, decision-makers are still the same small group.
EAG conference activity has grown dramatically, with EAGs now going over 1,500 people, and more EAG and EAGx conferences. Expenses and staff have all increased to support many more attendees.
The very CEA people who are responding here (and actively recruiting more people to get more/larger conferences), presided over this growth in conferences.
I can imagine that the increased size of EAGs faced some opposition. It’s plausible to me that the CEA people here, actively fought for the larger sizes (and increased management/risk).
In at least a few views, this seems opposite to “eliteness” and seems important to notice/mention.
I think the emotional cost of rejection is real and important. I think the post is about feeling like a member of a community, as opposed to acceptance at EAG itself.
It seems the OP didn’t want to go to EAGx conferences. This wasn’t mentioned in her OP.
Presumably, one reason the OP didn’t want to go to EAGx, was that they view these events as diluted, or not having the same value as an EAG[1].
But that view seems contrary to wanting to expand from “elite”, highly filtered EAGs. Instead, their choices suggests the issue is a personal one about fairness/meeting the bar for EAG.
The grandparent comment opens a thread criticizing eliteness or filtered EAG/CEA events. But that doesn’t seem to be consistent with the above.
BTW, I think views where EAGx are “lesser” are disappointing, because in some ways, EAGx conferences have greater opportunities for counterfactuals (there are more liminal or nascent EAs).
She responded to this concern here. She has been to an EAGx before and was and is open to going to others
When she talked to Amy (which is probably where you are getting the info and drawing conclusion from), it was not because she viewed them as lesser but because she had a scheduling conflict since she was a speaker at the AVA Summit.
Yes, Amy’s comment is where I got my information/conclusion from.
Yes, you are right, the OP has commented to say she is open to EAGx, and based on this, my comment above about not liking EAGx does not apply.
Quick point of clarification: on the call, I recall Constance saying that her heart was set on EAG and that she was not interested in EAGx. Perhaps there was a miscommunication or I misunderstood, but that is the information I was working with throughout communications.
Reading the comment you link to, it doesn’t indicate having been to an EAGx before [edit: maybe a virtual event was indicated], but does indicate openness to going to others.
Amy gave her impression on the point here.
You are right she doesn’t mention it in the comment. But in the OP she mentioned she went to EAGx Virtual. See the “Rejoining the EA Community (Fall 2021)” section.
To be clear, I’m grateful for much of the work done by CEA and I’ve really enjoyed the conferences I’ve been to.
I guess here what I mean by “elitist” diverges from what Constance meant. Because indeed you’re getting more participants and there’s strong pushback against that. On the other hand, decision-makers are still the same small group.