This feels like a missed opportunity.

My sense is that this was an opportunity to give a "big picture view" rather than note a particular underrated aspect. 

If you think there were more important improvements, why not say them, at least as context, in one of the largest forums on this topic?

Thanks for your work :)

My thoughts here are something like:

• Do orgs get cut off? Are there examples of OP being like "you just aren't efficient enough"
• I guess there are benefits to scale when do these take off?
• When should an org split into two?
• I guess I like that GiveWell is it's own org and theoretically it could get less funding from OpenPhil if something else filled that space. I hope that would happen and maybe 50% that it would.

Thanks for writing this.

It feels off to me that this is a forum reply. Seems like it is important enough that it should be a post and then showed to people in accordance with that. 

I think the missing step here is that revealed preference suggest that most Sentinelese people would change their lives to become like us, but we wouldn't change to become like them. So the model doesn't predict what people actually want.

I think I'd bet at like 6% that evidence will come out in the next 10 years that Nick knew funds were likely fraudulently obtained. I think by normal definitions of those words it seems very unlikely to me.

There are lots of workshops one could go to and a quick sense of content will help me decide whether it's for me.

Fwiw I have little private information but think that:

• I sense this misses some huge successes in EA getting where it is. Seems we've done pretty well all things considered. Wasn't will part of that?
• Will is a superlative networker
• He is a very good public intellectual. Perhaps Ord could be if his books were backed to that extent. Perhaps Will could be better if he wrote different books. But he seems really good at it. I would guess that on that public intellectual side he's a benefit not a cost
• If I'd had the ability to direct billions in philanthropy I probably would have, even with nagging doubts. 
• It seems he's maybe less good at representing the community or managing orgs. I don't know if thats the case, but I can believe it. 
• If so, it seems possible there is a role as a public intellectual associated with EA but who isn't the only one
• I feel bad when writing criticism because personally I hope he's well and I'm very grateful to him.

Also thanks Habryka for writing this. I think surfacing info like this is really valuable and I guess it has personal costs to you.

Yes! I love this. 

I disagree. 

I just think being a leader would be really hard. I am much less public that these people and I find dealing with that difficult. Now imagine billions of $ and 1000s of poeple looking to you to be a good role model.

I think we should hold our leaders to high standards, but we should be gracious when they fail. While I have criticisms of Will MacAskill, I think he's one of the best we have. 

I think I'd prefer to see us discuss what the errors were and see if he can work on them, because he's already way ahead of most of us in terms of relevant competences. I am open to people stepping down, but I don't think permanently. We all make errors, it's about whether we can credibly convince relevant people that we won't make them again.

From my DMs:

"Publicly commenting on who knew what when means a significant risk of being subpoenaed or having to appear in court as a witness, which would be a huge hassle and time cost for whoever speaks out (and possibly also for their employer and other people they're connected to). I believe this is one of the main reasons why senior figures aren't commenting on this."