Quickly: > I agree with the approachâs direction, but this premise doesnât seem very helpful in shaping the debate.
Sorry, I donât understand this. What is âthe debateâ that you are referring to?
I just meant the discussion you wanted to see; I probably used the wrong synonym.
This is good to know. While mentioning MCF, I would bring up that it seems bad to me that MCF seems to be very much within the OP umbrella, as I understand it. I believe that it was funded by OP or CEA, and the people who set it up were employed by CEA, which was primarily funded by OP. Most of the attendees seem like people at OP or CEA, or else heavily funded by OP.
I generally believe that EA is effective at being pragmatic, and in that regard, I think itâs important for the key organizations that are both giving and receiving funding in this area to coordinate, especially with topics like funding diversification. I agree that this is not the ideal world, but this goes back to the main topic.
I generally believe that EA is effective at being pragmatic, and in that regard, I think itâs important for the key organizations that are both giving and receiving funding in this area to coordinate, especially with topics like funding diversification. I agree that this is not the ideal world, but this goes back to the main topic.
For reference, I agree itâs important for these people to be meeting with each other. I wasnât disagreeing with that.
However, I would hope that over time, there would be more people brought in who arenât in the immediate OP umbrella, to key discussions of the future of EA. At least have like 10% of the audience be strongly/âmostly independent or something.
I just meant the discussion you wanted to see; I probably used the wrong synonym.
I generally believe that EA is effective at being pragmatic, and in that regard, I think itâs important for the key organizations that are both giving and receiving funding in this area to coordinate, especially with topics like funding diversification. I agree that this is not the ideal world, but this goes back to the main topic.
For reference, I agree itâs important for these people to be meeting with each other. I wasnât disagreeing with that.
However, I would hope that over time, there would be more people brought in who arenât in the immediate OP umbrella, to key discussions of the future of EA. At least have like 10% of the audience be strongly/âmostly independent or something.