TL;DR: Who is vetting this org? Are you able to pick a good org to work for with lower pay or would your rather have a funder vet orgs and you just go and work for one of them?
Specifically, I sometimes see people working for lower pay (or for free) for an org that brands itself as “EA” without doing what I’d consider reasonable vetting.
I do think there’s added value in letting funders do centralized vetting, and if you work for less/free then you’re giving up on some or all of that vetting.
To be clear, if you’re think you’re able (and more important: willing!) to do your own vetting then I won’t argue with you—I’d only encourage you to do it on purpose rather than without noticing. (I specifically assume the author can do their own vetting, no argument there)
Maybe? On the other hand, as someone working within the organization (depending on your role, level, and involvement in strategy) you may have a lot more information about whether it is executing well and achieving its goals than a funder.
My bar is much lower: “if you considered for 3 seconds whether a funder is way more informed than you [and potentially decided ‘no’]”, that’s enough for me
The situation I’m imagining is more like a developer going to work for free on a project branded as “EA”, trusting the CEO to know what they’re doing, and having the project seem like an elegant solution to something.
I’d add:
TL;DR: Who is vetting this org? Are you able to pick a good org to work for with lower pay or would your rather have a funder vet orgs and you just go and work for one of them?
Specifically, I sometimes see people working for lower pay (or for free) for an org that brands itself as “EA” without doing what I’d consider reasonable vetting.
I do think there’s added value in letting funders do centralized vetting, and if you work for less/free then you’re giving up on some or all of that vetting.
To be clear, if you’re think you’re able (and more important: willing!) to do your own vetting then I won’t argue with you—I’d only encourage you to do it on purpose rather than without noticing. (I specifically assume the author can do their own vetting, no argument there)
Maybe? On the other hand, as someone working within the organization (depending on your role, level, and involvement in strategy) you may have a lot more information about whether it is executing well and achieving its goals than a funder.
Yes, I definitely agree.
My bar is much lower: “if you considered for 3 seconds whether a funder is way more informed than you [and potentially decided ‘no’]”, that’s enough for me
The situation I’m imagining is more like a developer going to work for free on a project branded as “EA”, trusting the CEO to know what they’re doing, and having the project seem like an elegant solution to something.