I am obviously biased, since I help Deena administer GRIP - but from what I have seen so far the lack of awareness and the struggle to invest into Ops is quite apparent for someone like me, coming from the for-profit world. 
Maybe it has to do with the differences of role understanding between VCs vs grant makers. Investors either provide a lot of operational support (e.g. hiring, accounting etc.) themselves or connect their portfolio companies to professional service providers.
I am a bit surprised that grant makers don't seem to do the same, as they also expect e.g. reporting, have identified hiring as a major bottleneck, etc. It should be obvious that less mature back office functions will be an obstacle to maximum effective impact.
To flip it around, I'd greatly encourage the leaders of orgs to invest just a bit of time and small amounts into operational processes, systems, HR, templates etc, as it offers great return on impact!

Thanks for spelling this out, I tend to agree from my gut feeling. Certainly surprising given the general data-driven "obsession" in the community.

Trying to see the glass being half full: if hiring for less quantifiable comms is OK, maybe this can be applied to other "overhead" roles as well. Coming from a project management and tech entrepreneurial background myself, I see the EA space also lagging in other cross-functional ops roles. Given the small size of many orgs, obviously not everything can be done in-house full time, but professional service orgs could provide this on a fractional level. 
As for the reasons I can only speculate, maybe young average age of founders and orgs, small org sizes, limited budgets (with thinking investing hours themselves don't have costs), grant makers trying to keep things lean and pure, ... wdyt?
Also the service providers themselves need to rise to this challenge with education, visibility and maybe also less fragmentation, as some scale would help with the aforementioned as well as sustainability and quality of service.

This is why I am helping e.g. Amplify and WorkStreamNonProfit, and happy to connect folks working in these fields with each other and with orgs in need.
(And this is also why my thoughts above might not be completely neutral.)

Agree to most points above, particularly the introduction I felt caught…
In addition: my observation based on EAGx Berlin, EAG NYC and now EA Connect - the crowds are somewhat different.

EAG global oldest and most EA working professionals, EAGx younger and more volunteers/interested community and more local, and Online similar but more international with noticeably higher participation from the global south.

Maybe just stating the obvious, but sharing for awareness for newcomers mainly. Even though I’d recommend participating in any conference whenever possible since a great way to connect, get inspired and ones place in the community!

Personally, the offline versions are more effort with traveling etc, but taking time away from the kids on the weekend while being home was more challenging emotionally, but this obviously depends on the personal circumstances.

It is possible to rationally prioritise between causes without engaging deeply on philosophical issues

If you admit that rationality has its limits and want to focus on action rather than being put off by overthinking, I think it is possible. Also pragmatically it is most important to help, not to go for highly ineffective NGOs, but it is not so critical if it goes to "best" or "fifth best" entity imho.