EA - Moving Toward More Concrete Proposals for Reform by Jason

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Moving Toward More Concrete Proposals for Reform, published by Jason on January 27, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.Epistemic status: uncertain, unsure of the extent that I mean this as a practical proposal vs. a thought experiment to make certain observations, aware I could improve this but also aware that it should be timelyTiming note: Most of this was written before Doing EA Better was released, and is largely based on public events on the Forum. It is not specifically in response to that post, and is not really about possible epistemic reforms at all.SummaryThis post suggests that discussions of possible reforms relating to governance, deconcentration of power, and transparency have often been relatively unhelpful due to a lack of specificity. It suggests raising modest funding for the creation of more developed proposals, with the broader EA community taking the lead on the project. The post presents various reasons I think this proposal has value even if one assumes the underlying reform proposals lack merit. It explains how the proposal would provide information for and tie into further reform initiatives, and suggests some mechanics for funding and selecting proposals.IntroductionI find the very-high level discussion of possible reform to be generally unhelpful. At that level, it's too easy for proponents to gloss over implementation costs and downsides, and too easy for skeptics to attack strawmen. There needs to be more substance for anyone to seriously evaluate most of the proposals that are floating around as possibilities -- either in the abstract or in terms of whether investing resources in a proposal specific to their organization makes sense.I've also noted, as have others, that it's unreasonable to place the burden of producing more detailed proposals on reform advocates without either a strong reason to believe those reforms would be successful or providing reasonable compensation for their work. (Of course, no one should ever feel pressure to write even if compensation is offered!)For what it's worth, I think some of the reform proposals going around are likely correct, some are worthwhile in carefully selected contexts, and some are very unlikely to be viable. But I also think, for many proposals, that my assessments could update significantly if I read more detailed versions of the proposal.I'm a newcomer who has never accepted anything from any EA source other than one free book. This gives me certain advantages and limitations. I don't have to worry about damaging effects on my career, nor do I personally have anything to personally lose or gain from reform. On the other hand, my outsider status means I am probably ignorant of some important information. And it certainly means I have no right to make demands on anyone, only suggestions.Background AssumptionsMost of the money in the ecosystem comes from Open Phil and a few other large donors. However, there is still a respectably-sized slice of independent funding from small to mid-size donors. I submit that certain functions within EA are in particular need of a diversified funding base, rather than one that is dependent on Open Phil or other megadonors. In particular, the development of proposals about power, governance, and transparency is one of those functions. Not only are people not particularly good at deciding whether they need to give up power or expose their decisions to transparency, they also have an obvious conflict of interest on the question. One can doubtless think of other functions for which independence from major funders is important or even critical.For various reasons, I identify with a desire for moderate reform at this time. I'll define that (imprecisely) as a set of reforms that seeks to make EA a better version of itself, but still clearly identifiab...