Animal Charity Evaluators started as an 80,000 Hours project
More precisely, it was started by a student who came to volunteer in Oxford one summer, had the idea and then created it over that summer and afterwards as his brainchild, fundraising to start it as a staffed-up charity, etc. CEA hosted a number of students who came to do volunteer work over summers and other free periods. So while it was labelled an 80,000 Hours project, it's appropriate to use it as an example of someone with little relevant experience starting a charity.
For the same reasons that race was included in the 2017 survey, it could be useful to ask about parental education (as a proxy for socioeconomic background).
I might give to a portfolio in a particular cause area like meta. I'd only be giving a small portion of my pledge to that though, perhaps about £100 a month - would that even be worth it for the admin hassle for you?
As the help text below it says, that's specifically for EA Profiles (which are the profiles at that link). It'll only accept a link to one of those; if you don't already have one, you should create one!
To explain why I downvoted, I don't like this general kind of response (i.e. "shouldn't this be part of large organisation X?"):
It discourages people from actually doing things, for several reasons.
Dealing with a large organisation before starting the work takes time and is offputting, and many ideas will peter out or run into the ground if people are pressured to always do this.
It's quite a negative response to give to someone trying to start something.
It can involve unhealthy deference to or hero worship of large organisations.
There are rarely strong reasons for a large organization to take over the projects that people suggest they do, and cross-linking often allows all the same benefits.
It encourages a 'turf' mentality.
Having many people experiment with many approaches is valuable, and lets us see which work.
No, all your thoughts seems very sensible. The benefits of different organisations sticking to their own distinct, clear focuses are often overlooked, to their cost.
More precisely, it was started by a student who came to volunteer in Oxford one summer, had the idea and then created it over that summer and afterwards as his brainchild, fundraising to start it as a staffed-up charity, etc. CEA hosted a number of students who came to do volunteer work over summers and other free periods. So while it was labelled an 80,000 Hours project, it's appropriate to use it as an example of someone with little relevant experience starting a charity.
Yeah, I'd make it more visible, and flag it more earlier - it's a good idea which could use more responses.
Clever idea, seconded.
Oh, no one reads this. We're all bots.
Wouldn't even as small a donation as a few hundred dollars translate into more bandwidth?
I might give to a portfolio in a particular cause area like meta. I'd only be giving a small portion of my pledge to that though, perhaps about £100 a month - would that even be worth it for the admin hassle for you?
As the help text below it says, that's specifically for EA Profiles (which are the profiles at that link). It'll only accept a link to one of those; if you don't already have one, you should create one!
To explain why I downvoted, I don't like this general kind of response (i.e. "shouldn't this be part of large organisation X?"):
No, all your thoughts seems very sensible. The benefits of different organisations sticking to their own distinct, clear focuses are often overlooked, to their cost.
What are the ways that we can spread EA to others? Is there a list, and are there some outreach methods that are particularly good?