Hide table of contents

I've heard a few suggestions at EA Global that there should be an EA Ombudsperson, or a trade union for EA workers. I'm setting out a few initial, very rough thoughts in hopes that it might start a conversation.

What problems would an ombudsperson NOT solve?

In my view, "solving community problems" isn't a great area for competition. If Community Health and the ombudsperson were both separately hearing complaints about sexual harassment, for example, it's possible that neither would notice a pattern of behaviour. They could also contradict each other in unhelpful ways.

Similarly, I don't think an ombudsperson should try to take the place of a charitable board or law enforcement.

Question 1: Do you agree that an ombudsperson should refer to existing mechanisms, such as Community Health, charitable boards, or law enforcement, whenever possible?

What problems would an ombudsperson solve?

First, it's not always obvious, especially for newer members of the community, who can help with particular problems. An ombudsperson could direct people to the correct body, or pass on anonymous complaints.

Second, sometimes conflicts of interest or special circumstances mean that the usual channels would not be appropriate. For example, if someone wanted to complain about the conduct of a member of the Community Health team, the Community Health team could be perceived to be biased and unable to take an objective view. If a CEO of a charity which received a lot of donations from the EA community was potentially breaking the law, but was operating in a country where law enforcement was unreliable, an ombudsperson might be able to publish an independent view of the evidence.

Third, it might occasionally be useful for an ombudsperson to provide a second opinion on particularly controversial decisions made by other teams.

Question 2: Do you agree an ombudsperson should direct people to existing mechanisms, handle conflicts of interests or special circumstances, and publish independent second opinions on especially controversial decisions?

Question 3: Are there any other problems you believe an ombudsperson could or should solve?

Question 4: Is it worthwhile having a dedicated person or team to solve these problems?

How would an ombudsperson be funded?

Ideally, the ombudsperson would be funded by donations from individual members of the EA community. I would recommend that no more than 20% of the ombudsperson's funding comes from any one person or organisation - otherwise it would be too easy to accuse the ombudsperson of not being able to independently investigate their own funders. 

It would be easiest for donations to be accepted by a sponsoring body, like Effective Ventures (the parent body for the Centre for Effective Altruism), but that could bring the ombudsperson's independence into question - so it might be wisest for the ombudsperson to be their own charity/entity. I don't know how straightforward this would be or how long it would take.

Question 5: Do you agree there should be a limit to how much funding should come from any one organisation or individual? Should organisations be able to contribute at all?

Question 6: Should the ombudsperson be their own charitable entity?

How would an ombudsperson be chosen?

The ombudsperson could be hired by a committee. In my view, in order to ensure the independence and legitimacy of the ombudsperson, no one on the hiring committee can be financially dependent on an EA organisation - they should not be employeed, applying for a grant, or a current grant recipient. This raises a question about how a search committee could be put together - could registered Forum accounts with at least 10 karma vote on hiring committee members to represent them? Could anyone who meets minimum criteria (not financially dependent on an EA organisation, knowledge of EA, knowledge of hiring) put themselves forward, and 3-5 could be randomly selected to be the hiring committee?

Alternatively, the ombudsperson could be directly elected by members of the EA community. This isn't my preferred option, because I think it's unlikely that the best campaigner will be the best ombudsperson, and I think a hiring committee would be able to dedicate more time to choosing the best candidate.

Question 7: Should the ombudsperson be chosen by a hiring committee, directly elected, or some other method? Do you have any suggestions for how the hiring committee should be chosen or how the elections should be held?

Question 8: Do you have any other thoughts on the idea of an EA ombudsperson?

39

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Question 5: Do you agree there should be a limit to how much funding should come from any one organisation or individual? Should organisations be able to contribute at all?

Question 6: Should the ombudsperson be their own charitable entity?

To put a little more context on the independence concern, some of the proposed ombudsperson tasks carry significant legal risk -- the most obvious example is "publish[ing] an independent view of the evidence" of potential criminal activity. It's not appropriate for an organization to put all of its assets on the line for an independent ombudsperson's actions or inactions. On the other hand, if the ombudsperson has to get approval from a major organization's risk management function (and potentially at the board level for major actions), they are pretty lacking in the independence category. That pushes me strongly into the "own charitable entity" category.

On question 5, I agree on capping donations and would add that ideally only the ombud organization's treasurer (or finance committee members) would even know who the donors are. [1] By analogy, most well-run religious congregations are set up in a way that the lead ministers are shielded off from knowing which parishoners give money and how much they give. The reason for that policy is to guard against the risk of partiality. Another possible funding mechanism would be a large one-time grant with a clear commitment for the donor never to give again (cf. generally how the "Facebook Supreme Court" was funded in a way that gives it significant independence from Facebook).

  1. ^

    Donations over $5,000 from other nonprofits would generally have to be disclosed on the donor org's Form 990, Schedule I, although everyone involved could promise not to read other orgs' Schedule I. 

Thanks for writing this out - I've referred back to this several times in the last month! 
I think there are some practical hitches as Jason points out, but I think there's worthwhile stuff in the spaces of "making it easier to find information about what people's options are for raising a problem" and "more alternatives to existing resources."

I'm glad you've found it useful!

Should the ombudsperson be awkward?

I think you'll not find many candidates for stuff like this given your criteria and some will be weird little guys and girls with features that come from being very involved in EA but not working for an EA org. I have though about the criteria and most candidates who spring to mind are non-standard in some way.

Should the ombudsperson be respected by everyone or are we willing to have someone who is sort of the best of a small set even if awkward/difficult.

Honestly that's a great question. Is it better to have someone who's relatively more embedded in the community culture, or a relative outsider with the experience and skills that would be useful but who doesn't know our community as well?

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 16m read
 · 
Applications are currently open for the next cohort of AIM's Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program in August 2025. We've just published our in-depth research reports on the new ideas for charities we're recommending for people to launch through the program. This article provides an introduction to each idea, and a link to the full report. You can learn more about these ideas in our upcoming Q&A with Morgan Fairless, AIM's Director of Research, on February 26th.   Advocacy for used lead-acid battery recycling legislation Full report: https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/reports/lead-battery-recycling-advocacy    Description Lead-acid batteries are widely used across industries, particularly in the automotive sector. While recycling these batteries is essential because the lead inside them can be recovered and reused, it is also a major source of lead exposure—a significant environmental health hazard. Lead exposure can cause severe cardiovascular and cognitive development issues, among other health problems.   The risk is especially high when used-lead acid batteries (ULABs) are processed at informal sites with inadequate health and environmental protections. At these sites, lead from the batteries is often released into the air, soil, and water, exposing nearby populations through inhalation and ingestion. Though data remain scarce, we estimate that ULAB recycling accounts for 5–30% of total global lead exposure. This report explores the potential of launching a new charity focused on advocating for stronger ULAB recycling policies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The primary goal of these policies would be to transition the sector from informal, high-pollution recycling to formal, regulated recycling. Policies may also improve environmental and safety standards within the formal sector to further reduce pollution and exposure risks.   Counterfactual impact Cost-effectiveness analysis: We estimate that this charity could generate abou
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Note: This started as a quick take, but it got too long so I made it a full post. It's still kind of a rant; a stronger post would include sources and would have gotten feedback from people more knowledgeable than I. But in the spirit of Draft Amnesty Week, I'm writing this in one sitting and smashing that Submit button. Many people continue to refer to companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind as "frontier AI labs". I think we should drop "labs" entirely when discussing these companies, calling them "AI companies"[1] instead. While these companies may have once been primarily research laboratories, they are no longer so. Continuing to call them labs makes them sound like harmless groups focused on pushing the frontier of human knowledge, when in reality they are profit-seeking corporations focused on building products and capturing value in the marketplace. Laboratories do not directly publish software products that attract hundreds of millions of users and billions in revenue. Laboratories do not hire armies of lobbyists to control the regulation of their work. Laboratories do not compete for tens of billions in external investments or announce many-billion-dollar capital expenditures in partnership with governments both foreign and domestic. People call these companies labs due to some combination of marketing and historical accident. To my knowledge no one ever called Facebook, Amazon, Apple, or Netflix "labs", despite each of them employing many researchers and pushing a lot of genuine innovation in many fields of technology. To be clear, there are labs inside many AI companies, especially the big ones mentioned above. There are groups of researchers doing research at the cutting edge of various fields of knowledge, in AI capabilities, safety, governance, etc. Many individuals (perhaps some readers of this very post!) would be correct in saying they work at a lab inside a frontier AI company. It's just not the case that any of these companies as
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
My name is Keyvan, and I lead Anima International’s work in France. Our organization went through a major transformation in 2024. I want to share that journey with you. Anima International in France used to be known as Assiettes Végétales (‘Plant-Based Plates’). We focused entirely on introducing and promoting vegetarian and plant-based meals in collective catering. Today, as Anima, our mission is to put an end to the use of cages for laying hens. These changes come after a thorough evaluation of our previous campaign, assessing 94 potential new interventions, making several difficult choices, and navigating emotional struggles. We hope that by sharing our experience, we can help others who find themselves in similar situations. So let me walk you through how the past twelve months have unfolded for us.  The French team Act One: What we did as Assiettes Végétales Since 2018, we worked with the local authorities of cities, counties, regions, and universities across France to develop vegetarian meals in their collective catering services. If you don’t know much about France, this intervention may feel odd to you. But here, the collective catering sector feeds a huge number of people and produces an enormous quantity of meals. Two out of three children, more than seven million in total, eat at a school canteen at least once a week. Overall, more than three billion meals are served each year in collective catering. We knew that by influencing practices in this sector, we could reach a massive number of people. However, this work was not easy. France has a strong culinary heritage deeply rooted in animal-based products. Meat and fish-based meals remain the standard in collective catering and school canteens. It is effectively mandatory to serve a dairy product every day in school canteens. To be a certified chef, you have to complete special training and until recently, such training didn’t include a single vegetarian dish among the essential recipes to master. De
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
6
2 authors
· · 3m read