I'd be happy to talk about running software projects, or EA software careers. Please have a low bar for reaching out
I think that feedback regarding rejected offers can be valuable and low marginal effort (e. g. adding a column)
I'm pretty sure this is wrong. If it was so easy, orgs would already give feedback today by email or something, the problem is not the missing column.
Some CV writing support could be taken care of by Career Centers
This doesn't sound like what I'd call an MVP (unless this was the entire project), but I will stop trying to convince you about this by default
of the people who you spoke with and who had idea of a personal projecta) How many applied for EA-related funding to work on this project and how many did not?
of the people who you spoke with and who had idea of a personal project
a) How many applied for EA-related funding to work on this project and how many did not?
Eh, I don't have a good "feel" for this. I encourage people to apply to funding when it seems relevant. Applying for funding does seem at least somewhat scary, I know this myself too.
b) What percentage tried to find someone with a similar idea in mind to work with them on the project?
It is very common for people to look for a cofounder (which does not mean "someone with a similar idea")
3. Thank you!
A few maybe-blind-spots:
Also, "eyes on the ball":
The top priority bottle neck that I am trying to solve is "letting EA orgs contact candidates".
All the other questions more or less help filter down candidates.
If you help EA orgs filter candidates at the cost of "scaring away" some candidates because of a too long form - then I think you are probably making a mistake, or at least I would think very hard before doing it.
Note that I haven't heard from EA orgs that they get too many candidates and need help filtering them down. So this falls into "solving a problem that may not exist".
I do think/hope that asking what general profession the person wants to work in would not deter too many people (especially since I offer checkboxes). I do admit, though, that I am not confident that even asking for a CV/linkedin is a good idea since candidates are often nervous about it (but I decided yes to include it by default)
From the link/your writing, feedback of a candidate who rejected an offer can be also valuable. General support with CV writing can be valuable, as long as it highlights candidates' unique background and identities rather than standardizes the documents.
Sorry, I didn't understand the context, do you mean you'd want to offer these things too? (At the MVP?)
What is the percentage of people interested in something who applied for funding and who tried to find someone interested in a similar project, as an estimate?
Sorry, I didn't understand this either, could you ask in different words? (or explain why you're asking, maybe that would help me?)
What if this recommendation was not done as part of a discussion but written, would people who you spoke with still be enthusiastic about the recommendations?
I publish articles after I user test them. I do have one draft article about a similar topic that has good early results but I am not yet confident in it. Here's the link to the draft, if you'd like to look/comment (though I wouldn't count it as a user test unless you're somewhat looking for a job yourself, and if you'd, before reading, tell me your default plans for the next few weeks/months (so we can see if the article changed anything)).
1. Who is hiring: 80k are already running a job board which also sends updates by email. Are you considering improving their job board - in your MVP - which is supposed to also do other things except for being a job board? (I wouldn't)
hiring/contract timeline could also be useful
This sounds to me like solving a pain point that might not exist (no?)
I mean, maybe worst case a candidate gets contacted, says they're not looking anymore, and then their checkbox is updated (?)
getting regular notifications [about candidates?]
Again, seems like the MVP is having this information available at all - before adding features (that solve a problem we are not sure exists) like notifications
I could even imagine notifications having negative value for some busy people like you described
The main bottleneck, in my perspective, is not enough jobs that are interesting enough for candidates who do not have their own projects in mind
I talk to many EAs (especially devs) who are considering applying to orgs and I can tell you for sure that there are all sorts of other problems (including ones not in the link maybe) that could be solved by making it easier and less scary to apply.
I actually think I never talked to someone who didn't have at least one project in mind that they'd be excited to join (but perhaps I'm forgetting something. Anyway it's at least rare)
Edit: Something that does happen often is that a person thinks that no exciting EA project exists, but then I tell them about such a project that they haven't yet considered
So here's my #1 user research:
Would you like to add a checkbox for that in your own application form?
I think the MVP-MVP would be doing this once (before we try to do it monthly)
TL;DR: I'd split this up into:
(1) applying to many EA orgs at once, and
(2) having common interviews
I happen to know that many EAs are stuck at the "apply" stage and I think that solving just this would be useful.
Also, it could be really easy!
Some MVP ideas:
EA-related ventures should agree on application questions, trial task(s), interview questions and procedures, and work trial content and assessment
I'm basically against this.
The "knock down argument" for me is that this is hard, orgs won't agree on it easily, and we have such an easy option above ("Applying to many EA orgs at once").
I also think it has downsides, like "if I failed the interview for one EA org, is it a good thing if I automatically fail the interview to all of them?" - this is unclear to me
Part of my concern from reading this post is
when you do come into a debate with people who hold these views. The fact that you’ve considered the question beforehand, imagined some answers and actively extended your imagination to consider how the person your debating may think, should make the debate more constructive.
It seems potentially counter productive to assume you have already thought about the other person's view point