Thanks Jack, I found this to be a very pragmatic and fair approach. Maybe the community health team could develop a suggested policy document for personal relationships within the professional context using this as a starting basis.

Thanks Amy, I find your perspectives here really helpful and insightful, much appreciated...**goes off to talk to team**!

Hey Amy

Thanks for this post and the tangible metaphor. 

I’m having this issue on my team at the moment and the issue I’m struggling with is how to approach remuneration - does the person working 60hrs get paid for the same amount of work as the one doing 40hrs (I.e. Are they both salaried regardless of the amount they work). 
 If yes, does that not risk demoralizing the former. And if no, then does that not create a culture of incentivizing working hours far beyond the regular 40hr week?
Any insights would be much appreciated.

They did indeed ask such questions and I answered them indicating I had been engaged with EA for over four years and had made a career change as a result.

Given the much more positive response to my applications since I made significant progress on having the required signals, I am reasonably convinced that it is a case of requiring these signals to progress with most EA applications.

Hey Sofia
I was just preparing for an interview and thought I'd search the forum in case anyone had written up anything useful...and there was your really extensive, considered and helpful post!!

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this up, it's really helpful and much appreciated!

I have been ruminating about this issue within EA for ages, and recently got the opportunity to speak to people about it at EAG and was somewhat alarmed at hearing quite half-hearted responses to the question - So thank you for writing this up in an accessible way.

I think as you were suggesting in  'virtuous cycles', phase 2 work (or  research) could come to significantly affect phase 1 work. 
E.g. If phase 2 research or work on AI alignment  came to find that influencing the other  groups developing AI to implement the successful phase 1 work is not feasible (foreign governments for example), then it may trigger a reconfiguration of what phase 1 work needs to look like. I.e. is the intention of phase 1 to solve the alignment problem or does it have to become to solve alignment and be the first to develop AGI (excuse my superficial knowledge on AI alignment, the example, not the details, are what's relevant!)

I've also heard from a phase 2 type AI group that they have struggled to get funding and that there are very few people working in this area, suggesting again that your point is very valid and worth attention.

Hi Peter
Thank you for your considered comments. When I was completing the applications for your roles I thought the phrasing you used  was encouraging to describe one's individual  journey and perspectives regarding EA, and it was much appreciated.

Thanks for your feedback, indeed I was concerned that I would be perceived as bitter and I hope I mitigated that by explicitly stating the opposite, which is true. 
I'm fortunate to have the time to commit to volunteering and integration into the movement, and if I don't find a workable place for myself I have a previous career to go back to, so really the intention really just is to inform and discuss.