First, and most obviously, the pledge recommends a flat 10% donation
That's not entirely correct. The pledge says "I shall give at least ten percent of what I earn".
The GWWC pledge encourages most to donate too much, while lowballing a smaller number of large donors.
I think someone who is a large donor and a GWWC member would realize that he or she easily could (and probably should) give a good bit more than 10%. My perception of GWWC's communication is that their primary target audience are not potential large donors but more or less everyone. The question whether 10% is too much for most people is something that can be debated. I think there's a clear trade-off at stake: A lower percentage figure gets you more members but doesn't quite sound as impressive when trying to get GWWC or EA featured in the press ("GWWC members have pledged to donate 0.5% of their income!"). It could however result in more total donations if a lower percentage figure induces, say, millions of people to join. I'm not sure how GWWC settled on the 10% figure but I'm pretty sure that some thought went into this (cf. their FAQ answer to Why 10?: "We chose 10% because it strikes a good balance.").
it's probably a bad idea to "lock in" fixed strategies, for the same reason that people who take a new job every month shouldn't buy a house.
I would agree with you here but it's not like the pledge is in any way legally binding or there's actually a fixed, unchangeable lock-in effect of any kind. You quote Rob Wiblin as saying that "if he changed his mind about donating 10% every year being the best choice, he would simply un-take the pledge." Where is the harm if someone becomes a GWWC member with the sincere intention of giving 10% for the rest of their life but after, say, three years of giving 10% realizes that they could do more good in the long-term by giving nothing for the next few years because they want to buy a home and build a longer personal runway before switching back to giving mode? Or because they want to save as much as possible to bootstrap a startup that they think could do a great deal of good? And five years after that they rejoin? I don't see the problem here.
However, this [the option to un-take the pledge] is certainly not encouraged by the pledge itself, which says "for the rest of my life" and doesn't contemplate leaving.
Yes, maybe GWWC could add an entry in their FAQ section but I fail to see why this should be mentioned explicitly in the pledge itself. To me, it's absolutely clear that's this isn't some kind of binding "in sickness and in health" / "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution"-kind of pledge that comes with (severe) penalties should you break it. This is about your own personal life and your desire to do a good deal of good by giving away some money. If at some point you'd rather stop giving altogether and instead move to Barbados to open up a bar there, there's nothing that GWWC can do to prevent that. There is no sanction mechanism.
Fourth, although this isn't explicit in the pledge itself, I think many people taking the pledge intend to donate their 10% to GiveWell-recommended charities.
As you say, nowhere in the pledge does it say anything about where the donations should go. In fact, it's very broad in saying "to whichever organisations can most effectively use it to improve the lives of others, now and in the years to come." I think that's sensible because, as you say, there are currently deep disagreements about which organizations would best fulfil this criteria. But these mainly are disagreements with regards to the big EA cause areas (say, poverty vs. animal welfare vs. x-risk vs. meta), not disagreements about the traditional kind of charity – build this orphanage in Africa! help save this dog shelter! – vs. the EA approach. And I think GWWC plays an important role here in getting more people to think about giving effectively and by encouraging members of the global, say, top 10% to give a good deal more than they currently do.
A couple of points:
That's not entirely correct. The pledge says "I shall give at least ten percent of what I earn".
I think someone who is a large donor and a GWWC member would realize that he or she easily could (and probably should) give a good bit more than 10%. My perception of GWWC's communication is that their primary target audience are not potential large donors but more or less everyone. The question whether 10% is too much for most people is something that can be debated. I think there's a clear trade-off at stake: A lower percentage figure gets you more members but doesn't quite sound as impressive when trying to get GWWC or EA featured in the press ("GWWC members have pledged to donate 0.5% of their income!"). It could however result in more total donations if a lower percentage figure induces, say, millions of people to join. I'm not sure how GWWC settled on the 10% figure but I'm pretty sure that some thought went into this (cf. their FAQ answer to Why 10?: "We chose 10% because it strikes a good balance.").
I would agree with you here but it's not like the pledge is in any way legally binding or there's actually a fixed, unchangeable lock-in effect of any kind. You quote Rob Wiblin as saying that "if he changed his mind about donating 10% every year being the best choice, he would simply un-take the pledge." Where is the harm if someone becomes a GWWC member with the sincere intention of giving 10% for the rest of their life but after, say, three years of giving 10% realizes that they could do more good in the long-term by giving nothing for the next few years because they want to buy a home and build a longer personal runway before switching back to giving mode? Or because they want to save as much as possible to bootstrap a startup that they think could do a great deal of good? And five years after that they rejoin? I don't see the problem here.
Yes, maybe GWWC could add an entry in their FAQ section but I fail to see why this should be mentioned explicitly in the pledge itself. To me, it's absolutely clear that's this isn't some kind of binding "in sickness and in health" / "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution"-kind of pledge that comes with (severe) penalties should you break it. This is about your own personal life and your desire to do a good deal of good by giving away some money. If at some point you'd rather stop giving altogether and instead move to Barbados to open up a bar there, there's nothing that GWWC can do to prevent that. There is no sanction mechanism.
As you say, nowhere in the pledge does it say anything about where the donations should go. In fact, it's very broad in saying "to whichever organisations can most effectively use it to improve the lives of others, now and in the years to come." I think that's sensible because, as you say, there are currently deep disagreements about which organizations would best fulfil this criteria. But these mainly are disagreements with regards to the big EA cause areas (say, poverty vs. animal welfare vs. x-risk vs. meta), not disagreements about the traditional kind of charity – build this orphanage in Africa! help save this dog shelter! – vs. the EA approach. And I think GWWC plays an important role here in getting more people to think about giving effectively and by encouraging members of the global, say, top 10% to give a good deal more than they currently do.