I think you’re spot on on one disagreement. Let’s phrase it even more explicitly: You trust EVF to always make the right calls, even in 10 years from now. I don’t.
I believe I have good reasons to assume that even if they have good intentions, they might not act in the community’s favor.
Let’s phrase it even more explicitly: You trust EVF to always make the right calls, even in 10 years from now.
The quote above (emphasis mine) reads like a strawman; I don’t think Michael would say that they always make the right call. My personal view is that individuals steering GWWC will mostly make the right decisions and downside risks are small enough not to warrant costly governance interventions.
I believe I have good reasons to assume that even if they have good intentions, they might not act in the community’s favor.
To be clear, the point isn’t to act in the community’s favor, the point is acting in a way that benefits the good. (It’s possible this is what you actually mean and I’m misunderstanding).
Perhaps our real disagreement is whether or not we are in a high-trust regime or not: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/vXq4ADWzBnwR2nyqE/keep-ea-high-trust
I think we clearly are, and so this kind of attitude is costly and unnecessary.
I think you’re spot on on one disagreement. Let’s phrase it even more explicitly: You trust EVF to always make the right calls, even in 10 years from now. I don’t.
I believe I have good reasons to assume that even if they have good intentions, they might not act in the community’s favor.
The quote above (emphasis mine) reads like a strawman; I don’t think Michael would say that they always make the right call. My personal view is that individuals steering GWWC will mostly make the right decisions and downside risks are small enough not to warrant costly governance interventions.
To be clear, the point isn’t to act in the community’s favor, the point is acting in a way that benefits the good. (It’s possible this is what you actually mean and I’m misunderstanding).