Comment author: remmelt  (EA Profile) 20 April 2017 11:51:05PM 18 points [-]

While this way of gauging feedback is far from perfect, our impression is that community feedback has been largely positive. Where we’ve received criticism it has mostly been around how we can improve the website and our communication about EA Funds as opposed to criticism about the core concept.

As much as I admire the care that has been put into EA Funds (e.g. the 'Why might you choose not to donate to this fund?' heading for each fund), this sentence came across as 'too easy' for me. To be honest, it made me wonder if the analysis was self-critical enough (I admit to having scanned it) as I'd be surprised if the trusted people you spoke with couldn't think of any significant risks. I also think 'largely positive' reception does not seem like a good indicator. If a person like Eliezer would stand out as the sole person in disagreement, that should give pause for thought.

Even though the article is an update, I'm somewhat concerned by that it goes little into possible long-term risks. One that seems especially important is the consequences of centralising fund allocation (mostly to managers connected to OP) to having a diversity of views and decentralised correction mechanisms within our community. Please let me know where you think I might have made mistakes/missed important aspects.

I especially want to refer to Rob Wiblin's earlier comment:

I love EA Funds, but my main concern is that as a community we are getting closer and closer to a single point of failure. If OPP reaches the wrong conclusion about something, there's now fewer independent donors forming their own views to correct them. This was already true because of how much people used the views of OPP and its staff to guide their own decisions.

We need some diversity (or outright randomness) in funding decisions for robustness.

Comment author: nonzerosum 21 April 2017 01:15:56AM 2 points [-]

Excellent point.

My suggestion for increasing robustness:

Diverse fund managers, and willingness to have funds for less-known causes. A high diversity of background/personal social networks amongst fund managers, and a willingness to have EA funds for causes not currently championed by OPP or other well known orgs in the EA-sphere could be a good way to increase robustness.

Do you agree? And what are your thoughts in general on increasing robustness?

Comment author: nonzerosum 20 April 2017 07:40:21PM *  1 point [-]

What does an ideal fund manager look like?

(Many questions because I'm really excited and think this is fantastic, and am really glad you're doing it)

Comment author: nonzerosum 20 April 2017 07:39:36PM 1 point [-]

What is the internal process for adding a new fund or manager? What happens after the form is submitted - is it a casual discussion amongst the team, or something else?

Comment author: nonzerosum 20 April 2017 07:39:22PM 1 point [-]

Do you have any thoughts as to what the next funds added might be? Does the manager come first, or will you announce things you'd like to have funds in, where you don't yet have a manager?

Comment author: nonzerosum 20 April 2017 05:33:38PM 2 points [-]

This is excellent. How might you evaluate fund managers? Do new fund managers have to have an existing relationship with anyone on the team?

Comment author: nonzerosum 15 April 2017 05:56:57PM 1 point [-]

Thanks for sharing and formatting it so nicely to post here.

Comment author: nonzerosum 07 April 2017 10:34:56PM 3 points [-]

Thanks for this and thanks as always for all the fantastic 80,000 Hours content.