A couple replies imply that my research on the topic was far too shallow and, sure, I agree.
But I do think that shallow research hits different from my POV, where the one person I have worked most closely with across nearly two decades happens to be personally well researched on the topic. What a fortuitous coincidence! So the fact that he said “yea, that’s a real problem” rather than “it’s probably something you can figure out with some work” was a meaningful update for me, given how many other times we’ve faced problems together.
I can absolutely believe that a different person, or further investigation generally, would yield a better answer, but I consider this a fairly strong prior rather than an arbitrary one. I also can’t point at any clear reference examples of non-geographic democracies that appear to function well and have strong positive impact. A priori, it seems like a great idea, so why is that?
The variations I’ve seen so far in the comments (like weighing forum karma) increase trust and integrity in exchange for decreasing the democratic nature of the governance, and if you walk all the way along that path you get to institutions.
“ The variations I’ve seen so far in the comments (like weighing forum karma) increase trust and integrity in exchange for decreasing the democratic nature of the governance, and if you walk all the way along that path you get to institutions.”
Agree, but I think we should explore what decision making looks like at different points of that path, instead of only looking at the ends.
I think we’re already along the path, rather than at one end, and thus am inclined to evaluate the merits of specific ideas for change rather than try to weigh the philosophical stance.
I think Open Phil is unique in the EA Community for its degree of transparency which allows this level of community evaluation (with the exception of the Wytham Abbey purchase), and Open Phil should encourage other EA orgs should follow suit.
The EA Community voting on grants that Open Phil considers to be just above or below its funding bar
The EA community voting on how to make grants from a small pot of Open Phil money
Using different voting methods (eg—quadratic voting, one person one vote, EA Forum weighted karma)
And different definitions of ‘the EA Community’ (staff and ex-staff across EA affiliated orgs, a karma cut off on the EA Forum, people accepted to EAG, people who have donated to EA Funds, etc)
A couple replies imply that my research on the topic was far too shallow and, sure, I agree.
But I do think that shallow research hits different from my POV, where the one person I have worked most closely with across nearly two decades happens to be personally well researched on the topic. What a fortuitous coincidence! So the fact that he said “yea, that’s a real problem” rather than “it’s probably something you can figure out with some work” was a meaningful update for me, given how many other times we’ve faced problems together.
I can absolutely believe that a different person, or further investigation generally, would yield a better answer, but I consider this a fairly strong prior rather than an arbitrary one. I also can’t point at any clear reference examples of non-geographic democracies that appear to function well and have strong positive impact. A priori, it seems like a great idea, so why is that?
The variations I’ve seen so far in the comments (like weighing forum karma) increase trust and integrity in exchange for decreasing the democratic nature of the governance, and if you walk all the way along that path you get to institutions.
“ The variations I’ve seen so far in the comments (like weighing forum karma) increase trust and integrity in exchange for decreasing the democratic nature of the governance, and if you walk all the way along that path you get to institutions.”
Agree, but I think we should explore what decision making looks like at different points of that path, instead of only looking at the ends.
I think we’re already along the path, rather than at one end, and thus am inclined to evaluate the merits of specific ideas for change rather than try to weigh the philosophical stance.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/zuqpqqFoue5LyutTv/the-ea-community-does-not-own-its-donors-money?commentId=PP7dbfkQQRsXddCGb
Fair!
I think Open Phil is unique in the EA Community for its degree of transparency which allows this level of community evaluation (with the exception of the Wytham Abbey purchase), and Open Phil should encourage other EA orgs should follow suit.
In addition to FTX style regranting experiments, I think (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/SBSC8ZiTNwTM8Azue/a-libertarian-socialist-s-view-on-how-ea-can-improve) it would be worth experimenting with, and evaluating:
The EA Community voting on grants that Open Phil considers to be just above or below its funding bar
The EA community voting on how to make grants from a small pot of Open Phil money
Using different voting methods (eg—quadratic voting, one person one vote, EA Forum weighted karma)
And different definitions of ‘the EA Community’ (staff and ex-staff across EA affiliated orgs, a karma cut off on the EA Forum, people accepted to EAG, people who have donated to EA Funds, etc)