973Joined Oct 2018


I work as a Digital Media Manager at Charity Entrepreneurship. I come from Poland and live in London. I hold a PhD in Philosophy and wrote a book (in Polish) about the moral status of animals. I’ve been a vegan and animal activist for 20 years now.


I don't agree with that, Karolina. There are dozens of EA terms that were so far extremely poorly translated to Polish; even "doing the most good" is very problematic in translation to Polish. I think for Polish, we need a professional translator, like Elżbieta de Lazari (Peter Singer's translator), who will tackle classic EA terms, because, when translated literally, they sound horrible and make the EA language very awkward and unappealing. I already saw many EA Poland group translations that sounded quite poorly. It was very clear to me that a translator is very much needed. Check EA Poland website or social media posts from some time ago to see how unfortunate the translations can be. They're just not written in natural language, so someone with a lot of experience in translation should really give it a go. 

  1. Training seems to me like a good idea, if it can be online (to a large group - e.g. all organizers) very specific, so as you mentioned: if this situation occurs -> do this (e.g. if a person reports mistreatment of this sort, we do XYZ),  free, and mandatory, it could be very helpful. 
  2. The centralized page or e.g., an add-on/button in Swapcard.
  3. It should be announced in the intro speech who these designated people are (it should be 1 male and 1 female member), and I saw a great idea in EAGxPrague, where they put the photos and contact details to their community health people in the bathrooms (among other places), for the situation when someone runs there cause they are anxious, overwhelmed, etx. 
  4. I agree telling people to just improve their behavior (especially with solid portions of the community being people with poorer social skills) will definitely not work. 

I feel like this is a great post, and we should start a conversation here, e.g., by brainstorming problems and solutions. Stopping a conversation just because someone should actually do it, might not be the best way to go, because what guarantees that someone does? At least with this post, we can see if people actually systematically thought about it and already came up with some solutions that could be useful. I have a few ideas for improving EAGs that I would love to share and get feedback on. 


I was afraid of you because you were my boss, so I could not criticize your work and behavior, and I was scared to do it for a long time. I also know you as a very manipulative manager (just a subjective experience, no evidence here), so I was very afraid of you, and even given the above response, I still am.  On the day you quit, I was about to talk to the leadership about quitting unless I no longer have to work with you. Luckily you quit, and I was able to stay in my highly impactful work. But yeah, I am still afraid of you, and it is very saddening to me there is no investigation into the gossip mentioned below. But again, I am just afraid of the manipulative skills I witnessed and you in general. Hopefully, some people can stand up to you. 


"one particular disgruntled ex-employee" - I am not an ex-employee, but happy to confirm working with you is not a pleasant experience for an employee. So there are at least two people in the EA community. I expect if CEA investigates, there would maybe be more? 


I would be very curious if there were any complaints about Nonlinear founders' work ethics sent to Community Liaison, that would confirm the points brought up here?
It would be great if the community at least investigated things that were brought up here in the comments, and actually talked with ex-employees about their experience. 
My experience working with Katherine Savoie (this is the previous name of Kat Woods) was very negative.
Based on the gossip below, it looks like a pattern other people also experienced. I wonder if Community Liaison has investigated?
The gossip below seems well known in the community, hopefully CEA is already looking into it?

However, I am not sure how such a gossip could affect accepting funding from Nonlinear. It seems like this is beneficial to longterm projects? So I see no need to mix the two things. 

Yes, we have! In our very recent post on the EA forum we actually linked to our ideas list from the previous rounds:  “You can see the full initial list of about 275 ideas, along with a summary of our prioritization process here.”
We would like to include more information like this in the future. However, we always need to be mindful about how much people would update based on more shallow research and how much time would it take to communicate it well, e.g., polishing these earlier stages for publishing. In the past, sometimes people over-updated or formed an opinion based on shallow research and we would like to avoid that. We do share our notes with organizations that we collaborate with, or upon request if we think it would be useful for others. But yes, we are in the process of thinking how we can improve the information sharing even further within our time limits. 

When it comes to mentors during the program, multiple team members are available; it depends on the expertise needed for a given problem. Long-term mentorship is often decided based on the cause area in which a given mentor has more experience in, but it is not set in stone. As for external expertise, the same rule follows; we will have mentors in multiple areas available, e.g., fundraising, research, M&E etc. So the mentors/advisors are mostly based on needs and there is an opportunity to talk or work with multiple.

We have published a post on our scaling plans here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/EL3dKu5XcfjYhdjFX/ce-is-scaling-our-3-year-plan-and-current-hiring-round and they are now in progress, with the goal of doubling the quality and quantity of our charities in the next three years. Both, regional branches and cause area branches were part of the discussion when we were making the plan and our next evaluation point is coming this November, so we can’t exclude them completely. Some ideas included: India branch of CE, and only animal-focused CE, and these are still under our consideration. However, the three-year plan published on the EA forum is the closest to our near-term plans We are typically limited by senior staff who could lead a scaling project like this. 


I want to add to Steve's answer: 
We did extensive user research when we were starting out, both among prospective candidates and among actual successful charity founders, to find out what the barriers are and design the program to address them. Since then we haven’t done systematic research of this sort, but are constantly updating based on hundreds of conversations we have every year with people who could be a good fit, and partly based on that, modify the support we offer to address their concerns. 

Coommon barriers for applying to the program: 
1) One of them can be that someone does not have enough information about the program. We decided to address that by participating in multiple EAGx conferences this year, having talks, career booths, and meeting people in one-on-one settings. As you know, we have also visited EA Israel  and gave a talk addressed to local entrepreneurs. :)
2) The second barrier is that people are sometimes choosing between multiple career options, e.g., getting more education or experience before considering starting a project. We have addressed this by offering coaching calls that people could apply for twice in the last year. 
3) The third barrier ( and we have written more about this in another answer on this forum) is when someone has some misconceptions about personality traits, credentials, or expertise needed. That is why we have modified our talks and workshops to explain better who awe are looking for and what traits, in our opinion, make the best nonprofit entrepreneurs. 

We have noticed that we are most successful in encouraging people to apply when a team member, or a person who started a charity through our program, can talk to them. Just sharing their experience or more information about the program and the support after the program, can make a big difference. We also want people to consider the application process itself as the best test to check their fit for this career path, that is why we invite them to apply as a form of career development - to see if this is the right path for them. 

We have limited capacity, but if you know anyone you think would be a great fit for starting one of our top ideas (https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/research)  this year, feel free to connect with us at ula@charityentrepreneurship.com

Load More