Based on the EA Forum suggestion thread and suggestions we make something similar, we've decided to build out an EA Global and EAGx megathread here.
You can comment below to ask questions or make suggestions for how we could improve these programs, as well as discuss anything else relating to these events that is too short for a dedicated post. For reference you can view our website (and relevant FAQs) here.
We likely won't be able to answer all questions or respond to all suggestions, but we appreciate them nonetheless! As always you can also reach out to us directly by emailing hello@eaglobal.org.
Thanks for the response and clarification!
This makes sense to me + and I agree RE: other factors that can change whether something is a problem or not. I think I was too certain in my wording of the original bullet point, and can see where it could be harmful if applied too broadly. I guess my prior here is that most people are not intentionally wanting to cause harm, but do so because of different expectations or communication norms or social abilities. If true, I wonder whether some clear examples that are generally seen to be controversially unwanted by those on the receiving end can help reduce the frequency of harmful actions - it might be helpful in getting folks on the same page in terms of what a lower bound for acceptable behaviour in this context looks like.
For example, someone might not consider an particular action "sexual harassment", but 80% of women on the receiving end might find it uncomfortable and would prefer it if it didn't happen. In some of these cases it's probably valuable for there to be a norm that such actions just shouldn't happen. Agreeing to the text as stated doesn't do much to reduce these "misunderstandings". Giving some examples (while being clear that you can report incidents that don't fit these examples) also mean that if someone then does [inappropriate action], that folks don't really have the excuse of "sorry I didn't think this was inappropriate" / "didn't consider this sexual harassment, it was just a harmless joke". It also has fairly little downside risk, because if there was some hyper-specific context where it was seen to be appropriate by the receiving party even if it fit an example given, they just simply won't report it. I'm uncertain about this though, since I don't have a clear sense of what the distribution of harm and cases look like.
Yeah, totally agree with this, hence "potential" action, though I think I wasn't clear enough here.
I am interested in your thoughts whether data collection at EAGs have been effective or useful for capturing these kinds of incidents, how the community health team has responded, whether any of this is share-able in a deanonymised way? Also, does the community health team expect to continue sharing summaries similar to what you published in this appendix going forwards? I found this quite useful personally in getting a sense of how the community health team operates and think it's somewhat useful for trust-building and accountability.