Thanks. Is there a more detailed project plan than the one on page 9 here? Can you give examples of the sorts of projects that it might fund?
jayd
Karma: 67
The only issue is that its room for more funding situation still seems complicated.
Does anyone have a summary of this which they can share? GiveWell’s leave me confused, and I switched to SCI from AMF this year based on GiveWell’s de-recommendation of AMF, and am unsure whether room for more funding provides some reason to stick with SCI.
Can people donate specifically to provide EA Ventures seed funding and if so how?
Excellent questions and points.
2.) What, if anything, has EA Outreach learned from those who have already done outreach, such as CEA’s own orgs, or others? Didn’t, for example, GWWC already try VIP outreach?
It’d be valuable to write this up for others to learn on.
4.) Why is EA Ventures included in this? It doesn’t even seem thematically related.
I guess it’s because it doesn’t fit anywhere else, and it has to fit under some CEA branch.
5.) Is there any danger in CEA increasing how central it is to the movement? We certainly do want more resources and CEA seems to be in a very good place to execute these projects in a way that no one else can. But it would be bad for CEA to become a single point of failure for the movement. Has there been any spot in spinning off more orgs out of the CEA umbrella? Any thought in putting some of these projects on hold and use EA Ventures to try to get some of them out instead?
This is a very good point, and I agree there’s a danger in this. It sounds as if CEA is taking over the EA Summit from another EA organisation (Leverage Research) which could be an example, although if the Summit/EA Global would not have happened otherwise it makes sense. The idea of using EA Ventures to fund projects we want to see is a very good one.
What are some good introductions to Effective Altruism?
Having some downvoting is good, and part of the raison d’etre of this forum as opposed to the Facebook group. I agree that people downvote slightly too often, but that’s a matter of changing the norms.
Thanks that’s interesting. What’s the current package of ways of getting people to join and how long does it normally take?
A neutral look at the graph doesn’t suggest that—it shows membership growth staying flat for a long time before and after Giving What We Can started taking money, which is at least equally compatible with the hypothesis that that money didn’t increase membership. You couldn’t say that any increase in membership at any point after this showed otherwise.
What were the new initiatives undertaken halfway through 2012 which plausibly led to more members over a year later?
I don’t know if EA demographics fit smoking much—my sense is that we tend to be young and highly educated.
I’ve just used the guide to write my own will via WillAid—I left everything except a few gifts to family to charity.
The GWWC pledge isn’t really an ‘ask’ - people may make particular donations because they’re asked to, but no one commits to donating 10% of their income every year until they retire because someone asked them to. Instead they make this commitment because they want to do it anyway, and the pledge provides a way for them to declare this publicly to influence others. So it would be interesting to find examples of more typical big asks working—eg. fundraising teams which highball potential donors. Does anyone know of these?