I think the way the question is framed is a bit leading. The optimal amount of democratically elected EA leadership is probably non-zero (idk lots of things are non-zero), but I struggled to come up with any examples of currently existing EA leadership positions that I felt should be elected.
I actually wrote the question to be ambiguous as to whether the positions in leadership to be made elected already existed or not, as I wanted to be inclusive to the possibilities of either existing or new positions.
Oh right, I’m a bit confused about why you asked this question. It seems unreasonable to say that there are no hypothetical EA orgs that should be democratically elected, but also that result isn’t very decision relevant.
Like I can imagine a fictional “EAs for democratically elected EA orgs” org which should imo be democratically elected, does that mean I should have said yes to this poll? Or should we mostly consider real and highly plausible new orgs?
I mostly just wanted to put forward a relatively general form of democratization that people could debate the merits of and see with the poll what kind of support such ideas could have within the EA community, to gauge if this is something that merits further exploration.
I probably could have made it even more general, like “There Should Be More Democracy In EA”, but that statement seems too vague, and I wanted to include something at least a little more concrete in terms of a proposal.
I was primarily aiming at something in the core of EA leadership rather than yet another separate org. So, when I say new positions, I’m leaning towards them being within existing orgs, although I also mentioned earlier the parallel association idea, which I’ll admit has some problems after further consideration.
I think the way the question is framed is a bit leading. The optimal amount of democratically elected EA leadership is probably non-zero (idk lots of things are non-zero), but I struggled to come up with any examples of currently existing EA leadership positions that I felt should be elected.
I actually wrote the question to be ambiguous as to whether the positions in leadership to be made elected already existed or not, as I wanted to be inclusive to the possibilities of either existing or new positions.
Oh right, I’m a bit confused about why you asked this question. It seems unreasonable to say that there are no hypothetical EA orgs that should be democratically elected, but also that result isn’t very decision relevant.
Like I can imagine a fictional “EAs for democratically elected EA orgs” org which should imo be democratically elected, does that mean I should have said yes to this poll? Or should we mostly consider real and highly plausible new orgs?
I mostly just wanted to put forward a relatively general form of democratization that people could debate the merits of and see with the poll what kind of support such ideas could have within the EA community, to gauge if this is something that merits further exploration.
I probably could have made it even more general, like “There Should Be More Democracy In EA”, but that statement seems too vague, and I wanted to include something at least a little more concrete in terms of a proposal.
I was primarily aiming at something in the core of EA leadership rather than yet another separate org. So, when I say new positions, I’m leaning towards them being within existing orgs, although I also mentioned earlier the parallel association idea, which I’ll admit has some problems after further consideration.