As we've discussed, I'm tentatively excited about HIE's plans, I think changing your name was a good idea, and I think this new name is good.
But I wanted to push back on / hopefully clarify one part of the reasoning (partly because I think I was a/the source for that bit of the reasoning, so maybe I didn't express it clearly when we chatted):
To not monopolise funding for engineering-related EA organisations. This is significant consideration from a funder’s point of view as they may be hesitant to fund another organisation that may help to serve engineers in a different way to ours because they are under the impression that we are already fully serving this space.
I would instead phrase this more like:
To not monopolise the space of engineering-related EA organisations.
- People in/around the EA community often put a lot of emphasis on neglectedness and cooperation.
- This basically makes sense, but has the unfortunate consequence that often people are too quick to dismiss an area/idea as "covered" simply because one person/group is working on it or appears to be working on it.
- This can lead to missed opportunities, given that the existing project may later fold, may not be highly effective, may only cover part of the space, may have limited capacity, or may take one specific approach to it even though experimentation and multiple approaches would be valuable.
- This problem is probably exacerbated when a project/org is called something like "EA [x]".
- Because that may increase the chance that other people understandably but incorrect assume that that project/org is sufficiently covering the intersection of EA and [x].
- And because then people may worry that that org/project is trying to stake a claim to the whole space, or would feel insulted / confused if another org stepped in to the space.
- This seems like an argument in favor of names like 80,000 Hours and GiveWell rather than "EA Career Advice" or "Global Health & Development Charity Evaluators".
- (Another, unrelated way to mitigate this problem is to explicitly and repeatedly (a) mention that you think other projects in the same space could still be valuable, and (b) explain what your org/project expects to do and what people might guess you'd do that you don't expect to do.)
...ok, that phrasing definitely seems too long for the post, but I guess I wanted to unpack the reasoning more fully while I was at it.
So a key thing I'm highlighting here is that I'm not really worried about funders overly assuming orgs called "EA [x]" will sufficiently cover everything at the intersection of EA and [x] and hence not fund other projects; rather, I'm worried that various potential entrepreneurs-or-similar will think that or will worry about what the existing org will think about them starting a new thing.
I think where funders come in is that they may be less likely to fund an org that is itself going to be called "EA [x]", because that name probably somewhat increases the extent to which this org may crowd out other projects.
(Btw, I can't "take credit" for spotting this consideration; I've seen/heard it discussed by others, and am essentially just a messenger.)
Have you talked to Helpful Engineering? My secondhand impression is that it's a pretty large group, though substantially less action-oriented than you might have guessed from the name.
We haven't. I wasn't aware of them; looks like there could be scope for collaboration. Thanks for putting them on our radar!