I also think that advisory board could be a good way to get advice from experienced people who may not have the time or want to take the responsibility of being a trustee.
I think this is a great initiative. It is great to see what you are looking for and why and try to bring on more relevant professional expertise. I hope more EA organisations follow your example.
Thank you Michelle for such a compassionate post.
I think this is a very helpful post.
I think some of the larger, systemically important organisations should either have a balance of trustees and/or a board of advisors who have relevant mission critical experiences such as risk management, legal and compliance, depending on the nature of the organisation. I appreciate senior executives and trustees in these organisations do seek such advice; but often it is too opaque who they consult and which area the advice covers; and there could be a lack of accountability and risk of the advisors lacking sufficient knowledge themselves.
I have raised this directly a number of years ago but perhaps still inadequate. As noted by others this becomes more important as we get bigger.
Ps I don’t post much and not as accurate with my choice of words as other forum users.
“I believe I am a reflection, like the moon on water. When you see me, and I try to be a good person, you see yourself.” In the film Kundun on the life of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
Great thanks for this and the link. I am still trying to understand this more as it evolves. I guess as the monitoring and control is now much stronger hopefully Ro will come down also.
I find the analysis from this link very interesting. It suggests that Ro is higher than initially estimated at 3-4 (rather than 1.4-2.5 by WHO) but the national China mortality rate drops to 0.3% if the province of Hubei is excluded (the reported mortality rate of Wuhan alone is 5.5%). This would be consistent with the theory that the number of cases are underreported in Wuhan, due to a shortage of testing capacity and perhaps under reporting. A recent Lancet report by Professor Gabriel Leung from University of Hong Kong https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30260-9/fulltext estimates 76,000 cases in Wuhan as of Jan 25th based on a Ro of 2.68, more than 30x reported, which would put the mortality rate at well under 0.5%.
This suggests the pandemic could be more difficult to control than expected but mortality rate is also much lower (perhaps in the region of 3x flu).
This may also mean the main damage could be through economic impact.
Hi Peter, thanks for such a detailed post.
I think there could be a misunderstanding in Founders Pledge numbers as their pledge numbers are growing very quickly and significantly higher than in 2015. (They have also been making great effort in increasing the impact of deployment including into far future.)
Also in the commitment section there is Effective Giving which is a relatively new and making significant progress.
These could point to a somewhat different picture in the commitment section to the one described above.
Perhaps we can review this and provide an update if necessary?
Thanks for that. As you mentioned in your guide I only recently realised that as I submit self assement return, I don’t need to donate by April 6 tax year end, but can do so before I submit the self assement return in following January which gives me an extra 9 months to work out how much I can donate.
Thanks for the question and the opportunity to clarify (I think I may have inadvertently overemphasised the negative potentials in my post.)
Yes there is a feedback loop, but it doesn’t have to result in a correction.
I think cryptocurrencies and bitcoin could be a good example. You have a new product with a small group of users and uses initially. The user base grows and due to limited increase in supply by design the price rises. As the total value of bitcoin in circulation rises the liquidity or the ability to execute larger transactions also rises, and the number of services accepting the currency rises, and there are more providers providing new ways to access the currency; all these generate more demand which causes the price to rise even further, and so on..
But what was just described is a feedback mechanism, that in itself does not suggest whether a correction should be due or not. Of course at some point a correction could be due if the feedback loop operates too far. I think that’s why Soros said in 2009 “When I see a bubble forming, I rush in to buy” (I think he meant feedback loop when he said ‘bubble”).
What I was speculating is whether there are more chances for anti-consensual views to turn out to be correct in a fast evolving system.