Thanks so much for writing this. I have just skimmed the overall arguments but from what I have absorbed I tend to agree with you that there is a need to centralise tech resources.
Some quick comments/thoughts:
I have been involved in a few organisations and volunteer organisations and all would have benefitted greatly from access to tech expertise. I know others who told me they had similar issues with their organisations.
Based on my experiences I suspect that if we had well funded and centralised tech support for EA orgs there would be many more websites and tech products and many of those that exist now would be greatly improved.
Going beyond tech: I think that there is a general need for EA consulting networks, organisations and agencies (e.g., tech, marketing, research, statistics) to help incubate and support the many ‘topic ’focused groups (e.g., career advice, animal suffering reduction, charities etc). Also to help disseminate best practice from the experienced EA orgs into the new orgs. The arguments in your post also seem applicable there too (and I see you mention something related in your last post). However, I am far from knowledgeable or expert here so not at all confident that there isn’t something I am missing .
Finally, I’d like if someone explored if a hybrid model is viable for tech and other agencies. Basically, they could consult for EA orgs at a budget or for free but subsidise this by also consult for non-EA orgs at full price. That model could have a lot of benefits and enable faster scaling, higher salaries etc.
These are effectively a subsidy from the developer org to the org they are doing the work for. To some extent this makes them a small grant funding body which distributes to any org claiming to be effective. I would be concerned about free-riding.
It might be better to a charge a normal/slightly discounted rate for “effective” projects and then let the subsidy be delivered by other funders.
Thanks for mentioning. Yeah, that makes sense. I think that you could limit it to a certain portion of the work (say no more than 25% of work can be subsidised etc). I’d be ok with the external funding alternative if it didn’t add too much extra friction.
Thanks so much for writing this. I have just skimmed the overall arguments but from what I have absorbed I tend to agree with you that there is a need to centralise tech resources.
Some quick comments/thoughts:
I have been involved in a few organisations and volunteer organisations and all would have benefitted greatly from access to tech expertise. I know others who told me they had similar issues with their organisations.
Based on my experiences I suspect that if we had well funded and centralised tech support for EA orgs there would be many more websites and tech products and many of those that exist now would be greatly improved.
Going beyond tech: I think that there is a general need for EA consulting networks, organisations and agencies (e.g., tech, marketing, research, statistics) to help incubate and support the many ‘topic ’focused groups (e.g., career advice, animal suffering reduction, charities etc). Also to help disseminate best practice from the experienced EA orgs into the new orgs. The arguments in your post also seem applicable there too (and I see you mention something related in your last post). However, I am far from knowledgeable or expert here so not at all confident that there isn’t something I am missing .
Finally, I’d like if someone explored if a hybrid model is viable for tech and other agencies. Basically, they could consult for EA orgs at a budget or for free but subsidise this by also consult for non-EA orgs at full price. That model could have a lot of benefits and enable faster scaling, higher salaries etc.
Hybrid models
These are effectively a subsidy from the developer org to the org they are doing the work for. To some extent this makes them a small grant funding body which distributes to any org claiming to be effective. I would be concerned about free-riding.
It might be better to a charge a normal/slightly discounted rate for “effective” projects and then let the subsidy be delivered by other funders.
Thanks for mentioning. Yeah, that makes sense. I think that you could limit it to a certain portion of the work (say no more than 25% of work can be subsidised etc). I’d be ok with the external funding alternative if it didn’t add too much extra friction.