We did put a fair bit of thinking into it! Open to suggestions, but they will have to be quick (our reapplication to the Charity Commission has been considerably delayed already. Note that the lawyer we consulted about our application liked the name).
The name of an organization should ideally consist of two or three main words, perhaps four if there are strong enough reasons. Yours has six.
The acronym formed by the name should ideally be pronounceable and aesthetically pleasing. I’m not sure CEEALAR is pronounceable. I don’t think it’s pleasing.
The rules for generating the acronym should ideally be consistent. Either all articles and prepositions are included (e.g. CFAR) or none are (e.g. CEA). In ‘Centre for Enabling EA Learning and Research’, CEEALAR includes ‘and’ but excludes ‘for’.
[Note: Greg tells me that the name needs to be intelligible to the Charity Commission, so I retract this bullet point] The name need not provide a full description of the nature of the organization, or even be intelligible to newcomers. Those are desiderata, but may be trumped by other considerations. Consider, e.g., 80,000 Hours: no one would ever guess what they do just from the name alone, but it is still adequate, and much better than, say, Career and Coaching Services for Young Effective Altruists (CACSYEA).
I’ll try to think of some concrete suggestions later, but all of Jonas’s proposals look superior to CEEALAR, in my opinion. If you don’t like the word ‘Hotel’ because of its for-profit connotations, how about replacing it with ‘House’?
You may also want to consider creating a poll on an EA Facebook group, just like other EA orgs which went through a process of rebranding did in the past (e.g. Stefan Torges created one such poll a couple of months ago asking for alternatives to ‘Foundational Research Institute’).
I hope this doesn’t come across as overly critical. Congratulations for putting in all the time and effort required to get the (former) EA Hotel registered as a proper charity!
Congratulations for putting in all the time and effort required to get the (former) EA Hotel registered as a proper charity!
Thanks!
poll on an EA Facebook group
We did do this for the initial naming. It seems like a very lengthly process though, looking at the example of FRI. I’ll also note that the names that got to the top of the latest poll I’ve seen (from 14 Dec) don’t seem that great (but then my judgement perhaps isn’t the best in this area, given the reception so far to “CEEALAR”!)
I meant visually pleasing. I agree it sounds good. (Though I feel that when you know the spelling, it becomes harder to appreciate the euphony, given the incongruity between the two.)
I was thinking that you can always use a name that’s different from the legal name. E.g., GiveWell’s legal entity is called “The Clear Fund” but nobody cares/knows. Similarly, the Future of Humanity Institute has a “Centre for the Governance of AI” which isn’t a separate legal entity. So it seems like the brand (and/or shorthand term) you use publicly is somewhat independent of the legal name.
We did put a fair bit of thinking into it! Open to suggestions, but they will have to be quick (our reapplication to the Charity Commission has been considerably delayed already. Note that the lawyer we consulted about our application liked the name).
Some concrete problems I see with your choice:
The name of an organization should ideally consist of two or three main words, perhaps four if there are strong enough reasons. Yours has six.
The acronym formed by the name should ideally be pronounceable and aesthetically pleasing. I’m not sure CEEALAR is pronounceable. I don’t think it’s pleasing.
The rules for generating the acronym should ideally be consistent. Either all articles and prepositions are included (e.g. CFAR) or none are (e.g. CEA). In ‘Centre for Enabling EA Learning and Research’, CEEALAR includes ‘and’ but excludes ‘for’.
[Note: Greg tells me that the name needs to be intelligible to the Charity Commission, so I retract this bullet point] The name need not provide a full description of the nature of the organization, or even be intelligible to newcomers. Those are desiderata, but may be trumped by other considerations. Consider, e.g., 80,000 Hours: no one would ever guess what they do just from the name alone, but it is still adequate, and much better than, say, Career and Coaching Services for Young Effective Altruists (CACSYEA).
I’ll try to think of some concrete suggestions later, but all of Jonas’s proposals look superior to CEEALAR, in my opinion. If you don’t like the word ‘Hotel’ because of its for-profit connotations, how about replacing it with ‘House’?
You may also want to consider creating a poll on an EA Facebook group, just like other EA orgs which went through a process of rebranding did in the past (e.g. Stefan Torges created one such poll a couple of months ago asking for alternatives to ‘Foundational Research Institute’).
I hope this doesn’t come across as overly critical. Congratulations for putting in all the time and effort required to get the (former) EA Hotel registered as a proper charity!
EDIT: See also Ryan’s comment.
Thanks!
We did do this for the initial naming. It seems like a very lengthly process though, looking at the example of FRI. I’ll also note that the names that got to the top of the latest poll I’ve seen (from 14 Dec) don’t seem that great (but then my judgement perhaps isn’t the best in this area, given the reception so far to “CEEALAR”!)
Sometimes you can “operate as” something different than your legal name. Could be an option here.
I actually think ‘sea-ah-lar’ is quite nice sounding, perhaps a distant cousin of Fëanor.
I meant visually pleasing. I agree it sounds good. (Though I feel that when you know the spelling, it becomes harder to appreciate the euphony, given the incongruity between the two.)
I was thinking that you can always use a name that’s different from the legal name. E.g., GiveWell’s legal entity is called “The Clear Fund” but nobody cares/knows. Similarly, the Future of Humanity Institute has a “Centre for the Governance of AI” which isn’t a separate legal entity. So it seems like the brand (and/or shorthand term) you use publicly is somewhat independent of the legal name.