lrettig
commented
5 years ago Clearly I agree, but to play devil's advocate and bring up the other side: as Ameen said yesterday, there's a question of bootstrapping trust. "No one" knows who you or I am, but everyone knows EF. Say what you will about EF, they have "not acted maliciously" with the existing funding.
My response to this is to start incrementally, act with right intent and with complete transparency, be very clear about everything that we are doing and why, and build trust over time. I also think we can "bootstrap" trust via trusted individuals rather than via an existing institution such as EF. To be clear, I trust many individuals within EF, but I do not think EF itself is the right entity to manage this (or else it would already have happened).
There was a very long discussion today in the telegram group. One topic that came up often was the EFs possible roles.
Big things I took from the conversation.
My take is that we work as if there wasn't an EF to prepare for a world where there isn't an EF.
Lane 🧘♂️, [21.03.19 14:50] I think I’ve said this publicly a few times already. I won’t support any initiative that hands additional funding to EF. In my mind, one of the main purposes - perhaps the main purpose - of this initiative is to de-centralize funding out of the hands of a single, largely unaccountable organization. EF is not designed to be, and does not intend to be, around forever.
Ameen Soleimani, [21.03.19 14:50] .., the main purpose is to fund devs
Lane 🧘♂️, [21.03.19 14:50] Sustainably, with transparency and accountability.
Hudson Jameson, [21.03.19 15:36] As someone who has been at the EF since 2016, I would say that if the EF gets any more funds I would highly recommend an external audit of their current spending/finances/decision making and a requirement for full transparency before they get a dime.