There was a vague tone of “the goal is to get accepted to EAG” instead of “the goal is to make the world better,” which I felt a bit uneasy about when reading the post. EAGs are only useful in so far as they let community members to better work in the real world.
Because of this, I don’t feel strongly about the EAG team providing feedback to people on why they were rejected. The EAG team’s goals isn’t to advise on how applicants can fill up their “EA resume.” It’s to facilitate impactful work in the world.
I remembered a comment that I really liked from Eli: “EAG exists to make the world a better place, rather than serve the EA community or make EAs happy.”
I roughly agree with these.
You say”[others] rely on EA grants for their projects or EA organizations for obtaining jobs and therefore may be more hesitant to directly and publicly criticize authoritative organizations like CEA.” I could be wrong, but I have a pretty strong sense that nearly everyone I know with EA funding would be willing to criticise CEA if they had a good reason to. I’d be surprised if {being EA funded} decreased willingness to criticise EA orgs. I even expect the opposite to be true.
(Disclaimer that I’ve received funding from EA orgs)
I’m not sure about this. I expect people relying on EA grants are reluctant to criticize authoritative orgs like CEA, particularly publicly and non-anonymously. I’d guess that they’re more reluctant than people not on EA grants, relative to the amount of useful criticism they could provide.
I roughly agree with these.
I’m not sure about this. I expect people relying on EA grants are reluctant to criticize authoritative orgs like CEA, particularly publicly and non-anonymously. I’d guess that they’re more reluctant than people not on EA grants, relative to the amount of useful criticism they could provide.