I'm honestly more than a bit surprised to see there being doubts on the propriety of publishing this. Like on the facts that Kelsey gives, it seems obvious that their relationship is journalist-subject (particularly given how experienced SBF is with the press). But even if you were to assume that they had a more casual social relationship than is being disclosed (which I do not), if you just blew up your company in a (likely) criminal episode that is the most damaging and public event in the history of the social movement you're a part of, and your casual friend the journalist just wants to ask you a series of questions over DM, the idea that you have an expectation of privacy (without your ever trying to clarify that the conversation is private) does not seem very compelling to me.
Like, your therapist/executive coach just gave an interview on the record to the New York Times. You are front page news around the world. You know your statements are newsworthy. Why is the baseline here "oh this is just a conversation between friends?" (Particularly where one of the parties is like "no we are totally not friends")
I don't mean for my tone to be too harsh here, but I think this article is clearly in the public interest and I really just don't see the logic for not publishing it.
Edit: I threw the below together pretty quickly and now think it was wrong (because i hadn't reviewed the whole statute closely). Sorry about that...
"For what it’s worth (and I haven’t been licensed/practiced as an attorney in a while) , My intuition is the charitable exception here seems pretty solid (for the grants that took the form of charitable donations to 501c3s/other charitable entitities. The key question to me doesn’t seem like if granting entity was a 501c3/foundation but whether the recipient was a charity/purpose of the donation was charitable. (The money given to individuals may be dicier but 1. I think it’s still fine and 2. It’s not that much in absolute terms such that I can’t imagine a bankruptcy trustee going hard after it). "
This looks great! Very excited you're putting this on. I think building local capacity in low and middle income countries is extremely important for EA, and this seems like a great initiative.
Just to nitpick on a somewhat minor point: December 1st is really soon! I feel like a lot of EA events are announced very shortly before they happen, and I imagine this limits their impact and the people who are able to attend. Maybe it's just something I'm sensitive to because it's a mistake I've made before with 1Day Sooner (and I'm sympathetic to the desirability of moving quickly to accomplish important things sooner than later), but I think EA's status as a youth movement (and perhaps some other psychological factors) may generate these short lead times for events that then in turn become inaccessible to older people with families and other life commitments or people who are currently less into EA but might be really valuable to engage.
To throw out a potentially dumb suggestion: one possibility in this case could be to schedule and announce (pre-event or pre-the new year) a follow-on retreat in like June (basically a copy of this but just later) as a way of both using this upcoming event as an anchor to a broader project and allowing people to register interest who won't consider applying for an event in a month.
Thanks for writing this! I'm quite sympathetic to the point that political spending is likely to have second-order political and reputational effects for EA that are complicated and not currently well-theorized (at least in any sort of public setting).
Something I'd be curious to learn more about as an outsider to NC politics is a brief summary of background on the different candidates in the race and why one candidate might be better/worse than another. Friends of mine in progressive politics have expressed frustration with Protect Our Future supporting candidates they think are substantively unqualified and unserious about pandemic preparedness. From my perspective, in understanding decision-making here, it'd be helpful to know context around whether there were (for example) (1) multiple basically similar candidates and one said the right thing about pandemic preparedness, (2) differently qualified candidates and POF supported the better/worse one, or (3) candidates that were more left/right and POF supported the left/right one.
Thanks for the kind comment!
I think the problems I mentioned exist for all roles. (Insofar as there were roles that were a commodity with known pricing, maybe it would matter less but not sure. I don't know how many of those exist). I do think disclosing just a minimum could obviate the issues I raised. (And we do consider the value of disclosing anticipated salary as high enough that we generally do publish them -- I'm just making the point here that I don't think it's a costless decision).
Also I should maybe mention that 1Day's COO Julia Murdza manages our hiring processes (I don't), and her thoughts are likely to be more sophisticated on this than mine.
At 1Day Sooner we do generally list salary ranges in our job descriptions, but there are some significant downsides for employers that are worth considering. First, the salary we're willing to pay varies significantly by a candidate's background and quality, which 1. means an accurate range can be wide enough to not be very informative and 2. when we make an offer, the candidate knows what we're willing to pay, so we might be forced to over-pay. More broadly, listing the salary range reduces our ability to negotiate and means we'll get a worse deal on average. Like I said, we still generally reveal expected salaries, but I understand why others don't. I'd be curious for other groups' rationale.
From an EA policy perspective, I do worry that rejecting what I understand to be something like half of people who want to come to an EAG conference may inspire negative feelings towards EA in ways that are hard to observe because people who experience them or share them disproportionately fall out of the EA community. (I also think exclusivity may create in-group/out-group dynamics that are already inherent to social movements and can be thorny and problematic).
Maybe a constructive step would be some sort of data collection and dissemination about who applies and is accepted/rejected for EA Global events? It feels like we're steering kind of blindly but maybe that's a misapprehension on my part.
Air quality is in a funny place where 1. directionally, it is clear that removing pathogens from the air is definitely helpful in reducing infection (also removing other pollutants is useful as well) but 2. the level of benefit requires further research to quantify (i.e. if you remove 99% of pathogens from the air every hour, we don't know what % effect that will have on transmission). The benefit of piloting is A. it makes implementation and adoption much more efficient and convenient and B. it can generate evidence to help quantify the benefits.
That is all to say I think "we shouldn't clean the air because we don't know the impact of cleaning the air" ends up being a bit self-defeating (insofar as piloting air safety is the best way to generate evidence on the impact).
Thanks for spending the time thinking about this! My focus had not been masks because, insofar as they would make EAG safer in a cost-beneficial way, I don't think increasing mask adoption at EAG would have strong follow-on effects on other actors/the personal protective equipment (PPE) field in general. On the other hand, interventions to clean the air directly (ventilation, filtration, and UV light) seem to require better piloting on the critical path to wide adoption. Since a world with clean indoor air has both near-term health and long-term existential safety benefits my hypothesis is that piloting them in EA spaces is uniquely attractive compared to masks.
I know a lot of EAG biosecurity groups are excited about next-gen PPE and insofar as prototypes become available where EAG could serve as a useful testing ground, I'd become much more excited about implementing PPE there.
That said, I acknowledge your arguments that the direct benefits to EA health may justify masking. I personally do tend towards the "I dislike wearing masks; I think they impose real burdens that likely outweigh the health benefits for EAs" side of things, but I don't feel like my view on that is particularly well-justified.