MaxDalton

• MaxDalton 1 Jan 2024 5:24 UTC

  33 points

  4 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Larks’s comment on: Zach Robin­son will be CEA’s next CEO

  Also, a tougher question: how over-determined was this hiring?

  [Just speaking for myself based on being a member of the hiring committee, without running this take past anyone else.]

  I do think that Zach was in our top 5-10 most promising people at the start of the process. So I think that directionally the update is that we spent too much time/​energy on this process, since the outcome wasn’t that surprising.

  However, I’m not sure if we should have spent that much less time/​energy:

  • In general I think that this is a really crucial hire, and finding someone marginally better or avoiding making a hiring mistake is really valuable, and worth significant delays.

  • Some of our other top candidates were unknown to the hiring committee at the point where we started the process. So I think that there’s a nearby-ish world where the broader/​more-in-depth search led to a different outcome.

  • I think that the more in-depth process can help the board, staff, and community to be more confident in the decision, and that’s useful for the new CEO’s future in the role. If we had appointed Zach with no process at all then in some sense that would be the same outcome, but I think it would leave Zach in a weaker position to lead CEA.

  • Even if we’d appointed Zach sooner, I think that he might have only been able to start in mid-February anyway, because of his commitment to EV. Making the appointment sooner would still have been valuable in that it would have resolved some uncertainty sooner, but not as valuable as if Zach could have started several months sooner.

  • I think that some aspects of the process could have gone more quickly, as I noted in my last post on this topic. But there were some important aspects that the hiring committee couldn’t have altered much, and some things that mean that the actual hiring process was shorter than it seems (e.g. it took us 3 weeks or so after Zach said yes to get this post together, partly because CEA staff were on team retreat).

  • I don’t want to overupdate on one datapoint.

  • Outside view, I think that this is a fairly standard length of time for an exec search process.

  So yeah, overall I think you’re right that we spent too much time on this, and I’m still confused how much we should have compressed the process.

• MaxDalton 29 Dec 2023 5:20 UTC

  29 points

  4 ∶ 1

  on: Zach Robin­son will be CEA’s next CEO

  I’m delighted that Zach has agreed to join CEA, and I’m excited for CEA’s future under his leadership.

  I think that Zach is an extremely strong leader and manager, who thrives under pressure and cares deeply about building a better world. We dug deep into his strengths and weaknesses, through strategy discussions, work-history interviews, and reference calls. He has many outstanding references from people who have worked closely with him at Open Philanthropy and Effective Ventures US.

  Thank you to everyone on the search committee, advisors to the search committee, staff involved in the process (especially Caitlin Elizondo and Oscar Howie) and of course to our candidates for engaging with a broad and intensive search process. The depth and detail of the search makes me confident that Zach is the right person to lead CEA going forward.

  I’m also incredibly grateful to Ben West, CEA’s leadership team, and all the staff for leading CEA to one of its best years ever in 2023. It’s been an honour and a joy to work with them.

  I will be available to support and advise Zach and the CEA leadership team as needed, but after 7 years at CEA I’ll now be taking a break (with a new baby!) before exploring my next career steps.

  I look forward to seeing Zach, CEA, and EA flourish in the coming years!

Zach Robin­son will be CEA’s next CEO

EA Com­mu­nity Sur­vey (MCF 2023)

A brain­storm of meta-EA pro­jects (MCF 2023)

Key EA de­ci­sion-mak­ers on the fu­ture of EA, re­flec­tions on the past year, and more (MCF 2023)

• MaxDalton 21 Sep 2023 17:17 UTC

  30 points

  9 ∶ 0

  in reply to: William_MacAskill’s comment on: William_MacAskill’s Shortform

  Thank you for all of your hard work over many years, Will. I’ve really valued your ability to slice through strategic movement-buliding questions, your care and clear communication, your positivity, and your ability to simply inspire massive projects off the ground. I think you’ve done a lot of good. I’m excited for you to look after yourself, reflect on what’s next, and keep working towards a better world.

• MaxDalton 11 Sep 2023 15:32 UTC

  7 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: James Herbert’s comment on: An­nounc­ing the Meta Co­or­di­na­tion Fo­rum 2023

  Makes sense! I was thinking of Effectiv Spenden, but I see that that’s an ambiguous example. Another public attendee who is doing on-the-ground community building is Kuhan Jeyapragasan (and I think that there were 1-2 others who were invited but can’t make it, or aren’t public).

• MaxDalton 11 Sep 2023 14:58 UTC

  10 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: James Herbert’s comment on: An­nounc­ing the Meta Co­or­di­na­tion Fo­rum 2023

  Thanks for sharing James! We did invite a few people doing more on-the-ground community building in various university/​national groups, and some of them (e.g. Anne Schulze) are attending (note that not all attendees are public). But I’m not sure whether we got the balance right here, maybe we should have invited more such people.

• MaxDalton 11 Sep 2023 14:52 UTC

  11 points

  2 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Nathan Young’s comment on: An­nounc­ing the Meta Co­or­di­na­tion Fo­rum 2023

  [Brief comment, sorry!]

  Thanks for those thoughts—we’re planning to do some of those (e.g. have people write memos on important topics before the event), and I think we’ve considered doing all of those things. (Not sure if we made the right decision on how to handle each of these, and not explaining our stance on all of them because of time.)

  Re trust: Sorry, that second sentence is rather confusing. What I mean is that: we’re not guaranteeing that everyone attending the event is 100% trustworthy. And I hope that the event will allow attendees to understand each other’s motivations/​strengths/​weaknesses/​etc in more depth, so that attendees can get a better understanding of when/​how to trust each other and collaborate. I think that non-attendees won’t get these benefits, and shouldn’t make big updates from the fact that someone is invited/​not. I hope that’s a bit clearer.

• MaxDalton 11 Sep 2023 14:48 UTC

  9 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Chris Leong’s comment on: An­nounc­ing the Meta Co­or­di­na­tion Fo­rum 2023

  I think that the last one was in July 2022.

An­nounc­ing the Meta Co­or­di­na­tion Fo­rum 2023

• MaxDalton 7 Sep 2023 11:04 UTC

  46 points

  7 ∶ 1

  on: Nick Beck­stead is leav­ing the Effec­tive Ven­tures boards

  Thank you for all of your hard work in this role, Nick.

  When I was still new to leading CEA (and fairly new to management), your advice as active trustee was incredibly useful. I learned a lot from you about how to manage people, and your feedback on our plans was always perceptive. I think that I would have done a much worse job without your advice and support.

  I’ve always found you tirelessly kind, thoughtful, and collaborative, and I’ve really enjoyed working with you.

Progress re­port on CEA’s search for a new CEO

• MaxDalton 14 Aug 2023 8:04 UTC

  11 points

  2 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Arepo’s comment on: Up­date on cause area fo­cus work­ing group

  I have to say, this really worries me.

  I can’t speak for other people who filled out the survey but: I agree that orgs should be transparent about their motivations.

  The questions asks (basically) “should 80k be more transparent [than it currently is]”, and I think I gave a “probably not” type answer, because I think that 80k is already fairly transparent about this (e.g. it’s pretty clear when you look at their problem profiles or whatever).

• MaxDalton 30 Jun 2023 10:43 UTC

  25 points

  5 ∶ 0

  in reply to: David M’s comment on: Short bios of 17 “se­nior figures” in EA

  There are bios on that page.

• MaxDalton 30 Jun 2023 8:18 UTC

  31 points

  5 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Matt Goodman’s comment on: Short bios of 17 “se­nior figures” in EA

  Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you want EVF to do, but when I go to the page that you linked to I see a list of trustees with bios at the bottom of it. (This doesn’t solve the “contact” problem, but it does solve “who they are and what they do”.)

• MaxDalton 29 Jun 2023 17:46 UTC

  65 points

  18 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Sol3:2’s comment on: Short bios of 17 “se­nior figures” in EA

  We received over 400 nominations for the CEA CEO role, and are planning to reach out to over 100 people, roughly one third of whom have not worked in EA orgs before.^[1]

  I think that EA context is helpful in the role, and it is at least important that people can get up to speed quickly. But outside perspective and experience is also helpful, so we’re considering people with different degrees of EA engagement.

  1. ^

     At a quick skim, I didn’t look into this rigorously.

CEA’s Ap­proach to Moder­a­tion and Con­tent Curation

• MaxDalton 12 Jun 2023 14:51 UTC

  28 points

  6 ∶ 0

  on: Effec­tive al­tru­ism or­ga­ni­za­tions should avoid us­ing “po­lariz­ing tech­niques”

  Thanks! I agree with this post.

  I notice that I want to reframe this more positively, as “If you meet someone who is not a good fit for your approach to doing good, you should try to signpost them to communities/​organizations that are a better fit”. (But maybe that’s saying something importantly different from your point?)