I doubt the people who are plausibly good founders would actually benefit from such groups, and even less from some vague coordination due to facebook groups
I agree that Facebook groups are most likely not the ideal coordination tool, but I haven’t found a platform that is as widely used without having bigger flaws.
I also agree that the impact could be negative if there are people who would build communities just because they met via Facebook but I think a lot of that depends on how it is used. One check is ensuring that people who join understand EA and have a connection to that region. Another is having filters and coaching for people do want to organise, which should reduce the chance of a negative outcome whilst making it easier for a positive one.
I think having someone involved in EA create the various focal points means that we are less likely in the future to see groups appear that have no connection to the wider EA network and research but have already become the default organisation in their area.
I’m not sure you’ve read my posts on this topic? (1,2)
In the language used there, I don’t think the groups you propose would help people overcome the minimum recommended resources, but are at the risk of creating the appearance some criteria vaguely in that direction are met.
e.g., in my view, the founding group must have a deep understanding of effective altruism, and, essentially, the ability to go through the whole effective altruism prioritization framework, taking into account local specifics to reach conclusions valid at their region. This basically impossible to implement as membership requirement in a fb group
or strong link(s) to the core of the community … this is not fulfilled by someone from the core hanging in many fb groups with otherwise unconnected ppl
Overall, I think sometimes small obstacles—such as having to find EAs from your country in the global FB group or on EA hub and by other means—are a good thing!
I think I agree with the minimum recommended resources you suggest, but I don’t see Facebook group membership requirements as the only filter. It’s more likely to be based on seeing what people write/projects they do/future attendance at EA events.
Sometimes obstacles can be good but maybe there are people who would be really great organisers if they just knew one other person who was interested or were encouraged to go to EAG.
A tangential issue that might be part of this disagreement is that anyone can decide to become a group leader, create a meetup page and start telling people about their version of EA as there is no official licence/certification. That would require more thought as to whether having official groups is a good idea.
I agree that Facebook groups are most likely not the ideal coordination tool, but I haven’t found a platform that is as widely used without having bigger flaws.
I also agree that the impact could be negative if there are people who would build communities just because they met via Facebook but I think a lot of that depends on how it is used. One check is ensuring that people who join understand EA and have a connection to that region. Another is having filters and coaching for people do want to organise, which should reduce the chance of a negative outcome whilst making it easier for a positive one.
I think having someone involved in EA create the various focal points means that we are less likely in the future to see groups appear that have no connection to the wider EA network and research but have already become the default organisation in their area.
I’m not sure you’ve read my posts on this topic? (1,2)
In the language used there, I don’t think the groups you propose would help people overcome the minimum recommended resources, but are at the risk of creating the appearance some criteria vaguely in that direction are met.
e.g., in my view, the founding group must have a deep understanding of effective altruism, and, essentially, the ability to go through the whole effective altruism prioritization framework, taking into account local specifics to reach conclusions valid at their region. This basically impossible to implement as membership requirement in a fb group
or strong link(s) to the core of the community … this is not fulfilled by someone from the core hanging in many fb groups with otherwise unconnected ppl
Overall, I think sometimes small obstacles—such as having to find EAs from your country in the global FB group or on EA hub and by other means—are a good thing!
I think I agree with the minimum recommended resources you suggest, but I don’t see Facebook group membership requirements as the only filter. It’s more likely to be based on seeing what people write/projects they do/future attendance at EA events.
Sometimes obstacles can be good but maybe there are people who would be really great organisers if they just knew one other person who was interested or were encouraged to go to EAG.
A tangential issue that might be part of this disagreement is that anyone can decide to become a group leader, create a meetup page and start telling people about their version of EA as there is no official licence/certification. That would require more thought as to whether having official groups is a good idea.