To explain why I downvoted, I don’t like this general kind of response (i.e. “shouldn’t this be part of large organisation X?”):
It discourages people from actually doing things, for several reasons.
Dealing with a large organisation before starting the work takes time and is offputting, and many ideas will peter out or run into the ground if people are pressured to always do this.
It’s quite a negative response to give to someone trying to start something.
It can involve unhealthy deference to or hero worship of large organisations.
There are rarely strong reasons for a large organization to take over the projects that people suggest they do, and cross-linking often allows all the same benefits.
It encourages a ‘turf’ mentality.
Having many people experiment with many approaches is valuable, and lets us see which work.
I agree that this can be a problem. I’ve previously found myself demoralised after suggesting ideas for projects only to be immediately met with questions like ‘Why you, not someone else?’, ‘Wouldn’t x group do this better?’ I think having a cofounder helps greatly with handling this. It’s also something that founders just have to learn to deal with.
In this case though, I think Gleb_T’s question was good. We explicitly asked for feedback and we wanted to get questions like this so that we were forced to think through things we may not have properly considered. On a post like this, I’d rather have lots of feedback and criticism so that we know where the potential weaknesses of the project are.
I’d suggest the heuristic: If you’re friend is enthusiastically telling you about a new idea, hold off on criticism for a while whilst you help them develop it. If someone asks for feedback, or if you’ve been discussing the project for a bit longer, give the most useful feedback you can, even if it’s negative.
Thanks for your comments about the benefits of staying independent.
Thanks for explaining why you downvoted in such a full manner. Let me then explain the meta-reasons for why I asked the question.
As a nonprofit entrepreneur myself who followed the call for new EA charities and started his own EA-themed meta-charity, I’m quite aware of the benefits of starting a new project :-) My goal in asking this question was to provide the Good Technology founders with an opportunity to explain their reasoning about a question that I am sure exists in many people’s heads, but many choose not to ask.
As you can see, my question is phrased in a quite friendly manner. I express approval of the project, and then expressed curiosity about a specific issue I thought was insufficiently addressed in the original write-up. This is the sort of constructive critical feedback I would have loved to get when I started my own nonprofit venture :-)
Hope this explains my reasoning. We’re all in this together, and figuring out the best way to help the world. We may have different methods and paths, but share the same goal. Let’s try to assume that we all have the best intentions in helping each other out.
To explain why I downvoted, I don’t like this general kind of response (i.e. “shouldn’t this be part of large organisation X?”):
It discourages people from actually doing things, for several reasons.
Dealing with a large organisation before starting the work takes time and is offputting, and many ideas will peter out or run into the ground if people are pressured to always do this.
It’s quite a negative response to give to someone trying to start something.
It can involve unhealthy deference to or hero worship of large organisations.
There are rarely strong reasons for a large organization to take over the projects that people suggest they do, and cross-linking often allows all the same benefits.
It encourages a ‘turf’ mentality.
Having many people experiment with many approaches is valuable, and lets us see which work.
I agree that this can be a problem. I’ve previously found myself demoralised after suggesting ideas for projects only to be immediately met with questions like ‘Why you, not someone else?’, ‘Wouldn’t x group do this better?’ I think having a cofounder helps greatly with handling this. It’s also something that founders just have to learn to deal with.
In this case though, I think Gleb_T’s question was good. We explicitly asked for feedback and we wanted to get questions like this so that we were forced to think through things we may not have properly considered. On a post like this, I’d rather have lots of feedback and criticism so that we know where the potential weaknesses of the project are.
I’d suggest the heuristic: If you’re friend is enthusiastically telling you about a new idea, hold off on criticism for a while whilst you help them develop it. If someone asks for feedback, or if you’ve been discussing the project for a bit longer, give the most useful feedback you can, even if it’s negative.
Thanks for your comments about the benefits of staying independent.
Thanks for explaining why you downvoted in such a full manner. Let me then explain the meta-reasons for why I asked the question.
As a nonprofit entrepreneur myself who followed the call for new EA charities and started his own EA-themed meta-charity, I’m quite aware of the benefits of starting a new project :-) My goal in asking this question was to provide the Good Technology founders with an opportunity to explain their reasoning about a question that I am sure exists in many people’s heads, but many choose not to ask.
As you can see, my question is phrased in a quite friendly manner. I express approval of the project, and then expressed curiosity about a specific issue I thought was insufficiently addressed in the original write-up. This is the sort of constructive critical feedback I would have loved to get when I started my own nonprofit venture :-)
Hope this explains my reasoning. We’re all in this together, and figuring out the best way to help the world. We may have different methods and paths, but share the same goal. Let’s try to assume that we all have the best intentions in helping each other out.