It was written correctly in the Google Doc though ;)

(Nitpick: It should say "Foundational Research Institute" rather than "Foundational Research Initiative".)

I was thinking that you can always use a name that's different from the legal name. E.g., GiveWell's legal entity is called "The Clear Fund" but nobody cares/knows. Similarly, the Future of Humanity Institute has a "Centre for the Governance of AI" which isn't a separate legal entity. So it seems like the brand (and/or shorthand term) you use publicly is somewhat independent of the legal name.

Thanks, that makes sense. What do you think about the other points I mentioned?

This is great news, congrats on making this happen!

I guess you are doing this partly for legal reasons? I'm curious, have you considered going for "Athena Hotel" (the previous name of the hotel) as the main name of the project, regardless of what the legal entity is called? Might be easier to memorize/pronounce. I worry that otherwise, EAs will continue referring to CEEALAR as "EA Hotel", which could be a missed opportunity given that there's some reputational risk involved with the hotel.

Edit: More generally, it seems desirable to have a shorthand name for the hotel that's easier to spell, pronounce, and remember than "CEEALAR".

Some ideas: Athena Hotel, Athena Centre, Blackpool Hotel, Blackpool Centre, Learning & Research Centre.

(Someone pointed out to me that "Athena Hotel" might work particularly well because Athena is the Greek goddess of wisdom.)

Update: We've hired someone part-time (a couple of hours per month) to help ensure good implementation of the initiative.

You should correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the proposals were eventually weakened to the point that conservation of resources became the primary (perhaps sole?) focus.

"Primary focus" seems correct. The resulting legal texts didn't mention plant-based food anymore, if I recall correctly, but still led to a reduction in meat consumption/portions, so in that sense they were still somewhat successful.

As I already mentioned via email, I think this is an excellent post.

I just noticed that I overlooked one point when giving feedback: The main idea behind Sentience Politics' "sustainable nutrition" initiatives was also to promote animal welfare and expand the moral circle (through reducing meat consumption). The environmental benefits are also significant, but weren't the primary motivation.

Thanks! I think I don't have the capacity to give detailed public replies to this right now. My respective short answers would be something like "sure, that seems fine" and "might inspire riskier content, depends a lot on the framing and context", but there's nuance to this that's hard to convey in half a sentence. If you would like to write something about these topics and are interested in my perspective, feel free to get in touch and I'm happy to share my thoughts!