This seems directionally correct, but I would add more nuance.
While OP, as a grantmaker, has a goal it wants to achieve with its grants (and they wouldn’t be EA aligned if they didn’t), this doesn’t necessarily mean they are very short term. The Open Phil EA/​LT Survey seems to me to show best what they care about in outcomes (talent working in impactful areas) but also how hard it is to pinpoint the actions and inputs needed. This leads me to believe that OP instrumentally cares about the community/​ecosystem/​network as it needs multiple touchpoints and interactions to get most people from being interested in EA ideas to working on impactful things.
On the other side, we use the term community in confusing ways. I was on a Community Builder Grant by CEA for two years when working at EA Germany, which many call national community building. What we were actually doing was working on the talent development pipeline, trying to find promising target groups, developing them and trying to estimate the talent outcomes.
Working on EA as a social movement/​community while being paid is challenging. On one hand, I assume OP would find it instrumentally useful (see above) but still desire to track short-term outcomes as a grantmaker. As a grant recipient, I felt I couldn’t justify any actions that lacked a clear connection between outcomes and impact. Hosting closed events for engaged individuals in my local community, mentoring, having one-on-ones with less experienced people, or renting a local space for coworking and group events appeared harder to measure. I also believe in the norm of doing this out of care, wanting to give back to the community, and ensuring the community is a place where people don’t need to be compensated to participate.
I think this is a complex issue. I imagine it would be incredibly hard to give it a really robust write-up, and definitely don’t mean for my post to be definitive.
This seems directionally correct, but I would add more nuance.
While OP, as a grantmaker, has a goal it wants to achieve with its grants (and they wouldn’t be EA aligned if they didn’t), this doesn’t necessarily mean they are very short term. The Open Phil EA/​LT Survey seems to me to show best what they care about in outcomes (talent working in impactful areas) but also how hard it is to pinpoint the actions and inputs needed. This leads me to believe that OP instrumentally cares about the community/​ecosystem/​network as it needs multiple touchpoints and interactions to get most people from being interested in EA ideas to working on impactful things.
On the other side, we use the term community in confusing ways. I was on a Community Builder Grant by CEA for two years when working at EA Germany, which many call national community building. What we were actually doing was working on the talent development pipeline, trying to find promising target groups, developing them and trying to estimate the talent outcomes.
Working on EA as a social movement/​community while being paid is challenging. On one hand, I assume OP would find it instrumentally useful (see above) but still desire to track short-term outcomes as a grantmaker. As a grant recipient, I felt I couldn’t justify any actions that lacked a clear connection between outcomes and impact. Hosting closed events for engaged individuals in my local community, mentoring, having one-on-ones with less experienced people, or renting a local space for coworking and group events appeared harder to measure. I also believe in the norm of doing this out of care, wanting to give back to the community, and ensuring the community is a place where people don’t need to be compensated to participate.
Thanks for the details here!
> would add more nuance
I think this is a complex issue. I imagine it would be incredibly hard to give it a really robust write-up, and definitely don’t mean for my post to be definitive.