Thanks for this! I would broaden this criteria somewhat.
Someone who meets any of the following criteria relevant time period (really like the way you defined the period as “the year in which the incident occured, the year prior, and the following year (to the extent the following year has transpired)”):
Accepted to EA-branded events such as an EAG(x), retreat, summit or workshop
Worked (temporarily or full-time) for an EA-aligned organization or one that received a grant from a list of funders and could reasonably be considered part of the EA movement (e.g., the Gates Foundation does not count);
Received a grant, scholarship or fellowship from any of those funders or programs they have funded during the relevant time period;
Is an organizer or regular member (as defined by attending some number of events in the given period, or is considered as such by the group organizer) in an EA group that has received funding from EA funders
Rationale:
Expanded EAG to EA branded events because there are lots of other EA branded events, but didn’t include e.g. cause-specific events that might have a large number of non-EAs
Mentioned temporary work (e.g. contractor) in case it’s unclear
Expanded grant to include scholarship / fellowship
Expanded to include being a member of a group, because i think it’s really important to count that person as invovled in EA. Very uncertain of exact boundaries there.
Thanks—I figured my list was incomplete. I think there’s a potential administrability tradeoff here. It’s reasonable to expect CH to check certain internal, critical, and/or easily accessible data. However, I suspect there are might be things that would auto-qualify for EA status under that proposal that CH might not pick up on after a reasonable inquiry into the alleged offender’s status. So I think there are things that should auto-qualify, but for which I wouldn’t necessarily call a failure to apply auto-qualification a miss.
I struggled with the group inclusion criteria. One challenge is that CH may need to be able to apply the statistical criterion without tipping off to anyone else that there has been a complaint about a specific person. In a large group, CH could get around that by asking for the full active-member list (although that might be a burden on group leaders depending on whether CH was asking for a pre-existing document or asking the leaders to create a list5 that met the statistical criterion). In a smaller group, they would need to find a way to get this information without arousing suspicion that there had been a complaint about a group member.
Thanks for this! I would broaden this criteria somewhat.
Someone who meets any of the following criteria relevant time period (really like the way you defined the period as “the year in which the incident occured, the year prior, and the following year (to the extent the following year has transpired)”):
Accepted to EA-branded events such as an EAG(x), retreat, summit or workshop
Worked (temporarily or full-time) for an EA-aligned organization or one that received a grant from a list of funders and could reasonably be considered part of the EA movement (e.g., the Gates Foundation does not count);
Received a grant, scholarship or fellowship from any of those funders or programs they have funded during the relevant time period;
Is an organizer or regular member (as defined by attending some number of events in the given period, or is considered as such by the group organizer) in an EA group that has received funding from EA funders
Rationale:
Expanded EAG to EA branded events because there are lots of other EA branded events, but didn’t include e.g. cause-specific events that might have a large number of non-EAs
Mentioned temporary work (e.g. contractor) in case it’s unclear
Expanded grant to include scholarship / fellowship
Expanded to include being a member of a group, because i think it’s really important to count that person as invovled in EA. Very uncertain of exact boundaries there.
Thanks—I figured my list was incomplete. I think there’s a potential administrability tradeoff here. It’s reasonable to expect CH to check certain internal, critical, and/or easily accessible data. However, I suspect there are might be things that would auto-qualify for EA status under that proposal that CH might not pick up on after a reasonable inquiry into the alleged offender’s status. So I think there are things that should auto-qualify, but for which I wouldn’t necessarily call a failure to apply auto-qualification a miss.
I struggled with the group inclusion criteria. One challenge is that CH may need to be able to apply the statistical criterion without tipping off to anyone else that there has been a complaint about a specific person. In a large group, CH could get around that by asking for the full active-member list (although that might be a burden on group leaders depending on whether CH was asking for a pre-existing document or asking the leaders to create a list5 that met the statistical criterion). In a smaller group, they would need to find a way to get this information without arousing suspicion that there had been a complaint about a group member.