I’m not sure how much we should be relying on the legal institution of the nonprofit board here, since these are often pretty toothless. (Honestly, CEA’s board has shown more teeth than many ever do, though they were still very slow to act in this case IMO.)
But I’m also not sure what the alternative is.
(My comment on this other thread is also somewhat relevant here.)
If the organisations are effectively run individually, then they answer to their funders.
If they all get funding directed from the same group who just de facto fund whatever falls under the EV umbrella, then we’re back to the EV trustees having all the power.
If they get substantial funding from we, the movement, that seems healthier, but only if there’s some kind of meaningful competition. That only seems possible if they limit their scope to allow for meaningful comparisons between orgs—which I argued for here, though didn’t get much engagement :\
Plausibly.
I’m not sure how much we should be relying on the legal institution of the nonprofit board here, since these are often pretty toothless. (Honestly, CEA’s board has shown more teeth than many ever do, though they were still very slow to act in this case IMO.)
But I’m also not sure what the alternative is.
(My comment on this other thread is also somewhat relevant here.)
If the organisations are effectively run individually, then they answer to their funders.
If they all get funding directed from the same group who just de facto fund whatever falls under the EV umbrella, then we’re back to the EV trustees having all the power.
If they get substantial funding from we, the movement, that seems healthier, but only if there’s some kind of meaningful competition. That only seems possible if they limit their scope to allow for meaningful comparisons between orgs—which I argued for here, though didn’t get much engagement :\