However, I think the cost of this position is non-negligible. Given the power-law distribution of impact among people and given the many rounds of tests, which employees at EA organizations allegedly undergo—a democratic vote would probably yield a much less discerning choice (as most people wouldn’t spend more than 30 minutes picking a candidate). I’m not sure to what extent the wisdom of the crowd might apply here.
Important characteristics of the ambassador include the community has trust in this person and this person is aligned to the community’s interests and concerns. A community vote is ~authoritative on the first question and awfully probative on the second. If someone independent of the community picked the evaluator, in a real sense they wouldn’t be the community’s ambassador.
You could also do a two-step selection process here; the community selects a committee (and perhaps does approval voting for candidates), and the committee selects the ambassador after more thought. That would allow the more detailed evaluation for finalists while maintaining at least indirect community selection.
Important characteristics of the ambassador include the community has trust in this person and this person is aligned to the community’s interests and concerns. A community vote is ~authoritative on the first question and awfully probative on the second. If someone independent of the community picked the evaluator, in a real sense they wouldn’t be the community’s ambassador.
You could also do a two-step selection process here; the community selects a committee (and perhaps does approval voting for candidates), and the committee selects the ambassador after more thought. That would allow the more detailed evaluation for finalists while maintaining at least indirect community selection.