I used to work at EA Norway, which is a fee-paying membership society, and thought it might be useful to share more on how our funding worked. This is just meant as an example, and not as an argument for or against membership societies. (Here's a longer comment explaining how we organise things at EA Norway.)
I can't speak to EA Norway's current situation, as I no longer have any position at EA Norway (other than being a paying member). However, I can say what it was like in 2018-2021 when I was Executive Director (ED). The total income from the membership fee roughly covered the cost of the general assembly. Most of our funding came from a community building grant from the Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA). However, the board made sure to fundraise enough from private donors for my salary. The two main reasons for this was to I) diversify our funding, and II) enable us to make longer term plans than CEAs grant periods.
When the board gave approval to accept the community building grant from CEA, we discussed that if at any point we did not want to follow CEAs guidelines and success metrics, we would pay back the remainder of the grant. This was definitely easier for us to say and truly mean when we had covered the ED's salary from other sources, as it meant that if we were to return the funding, we would still have at least one employee. We never ended up disagreeing so much with CEA that we wanted to return the funds, though we were definitely very vocal about any disagreements we had with the groups team at CEA and did push for some changes.
This is a tangent, but I thought I'd say a bit more about how we've done things at EA Norway, as some people might not know. This is not meant as an argument in any direction.
Every year, we have a general assembly for members of EA Norway. To be a member, you need to have paid the yearly membership fee (either to EA Norway or one of the approved student groups). The total income from the membership fee covers roughly the costs of organising the general assembly. The importance of the membership fee is mainly that it's a bar of entry to the organisation, makes it clear if you're a member or not, and it's nice and symbolic that the fees can cover the general assembly. However, I think the crucial thing about how we're organised at EA Norway isn't that members pay a fee, but that the general assembly is the supreme body of the organisation.
During the general assembly, the attending members vote on an election committee, board members, and community representatives. During the general assembly, the members can also bring forward and vote on changes to the statutes and resolutions. Resolutions are basically requests members have for the board, that they're asking the board to look into or comment on until the next general assembly. The general assembly also need to approve an annual report of activities and a financial report.
The election committee is responsible for finding candidates for the different positions, and nominate candidates to the board ahead of the next general assembly.
The board is responsible for setting a strategy for the organisation and assessing the Executive Director. Historically, the board has set 3-year strategies for the org, including objectives and metrics for those objectives. The Executive Director is tasked with carrying out that strategy and need to regularly report on the progress of the metrics to the board. Redacted meeting minutes from each board meeting are made available to the members in an online community folder.
Community representatives are available to members who want to raise small or big issues that they feel like they can't raise elsewhere. They can't have any other position at the organisation. Per the statutes, the community representatives are to be involved as early as possible in any internal conflict, breach of statutes or ethical guidelines, and other matters that might be harmful for the members or EA Norway.
Really love this, and definitely think you're on to something - thanks for posting! I'd also add that if there are certain things that you don't enjoy or find aversive, you should consider looking for co-organisers who find the those things fun and rewarding. Like with startups, you should generally be two instead of one. And for a lot of people, it's also more fun to do things together than alone.
I'm grateful you've asked this question, as I've been really curious about this myself and have considered asking the same question. I know I should be careful when comparing myself with others, but I only have experience from one organisation where I have also been in charge of deciding number of hours we should work and how to track it. It feels nice to know that what I've been doing isn't totally off.
Here's what we do at our ~3 year old organisation with 3-4 employees: We use Toggl for tracking hours we actually work and a separate spreadsheet to track number of hours we're at work. We estimate that 6 hours on Toggl is about 7.5 hours at work. The extra 1.5 hours are breaks, usually consisting of many 5 min breaks and one 30 min break (we don't count lunch).
I usually track 6-7 hours of actual work in a regular day ( I work 5 days a week). Some weeks I track 4-5 hours most days, and then 8-10 hours some days. I try to regulate my hours so that each week is more or less the same. In weeks where I work a lot over 6 hours per day, I schedule a day off in the coming week.
I don't have that much time for deep work. Maybe 1-4 hours per week. In my current role, not that much of my work requires deep work, though I should probably be doing 3-5 hours of this per week.
Thanks for sharing, this is great! I found it particularly useful to read how many hours you spend on each activity and the objectives and key results you've planned for 2020.
I was a bit surprised that you've used a quarter (250/932 hours) of your time on personally learning directly related to EA. How much do you think the hours you spent on learning have contributed to the positive outcomes of EA Toronto? You wrote "Finally, without independent learning, another wild guess seems to say that the other two thirds of EATO's strategy updates and insights would not exist". Does this mean that you partly focused on learning about strategy and evaluation?
Also super cool that you directed around 42,000 CAD to MF!!
Thanks for your feedback! We have ended up going for a 4-7 day camp for people with 1-2 years of experience. I've noted down your ideas for a future iteration of the camp.
And thanks for your offer! You've been very helpful so far, and it would be great to discuss more at a later time.
Thanks for explaining! I wasn't familiar with the term, but I feel like I know understand better what it entails and the different ways it could look like.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment! We've noted down all your points, and found especially the one about signalling fit and thoughts on the role of national/local groups very interesting and valuable.
Thank you for your comments! You've particularly made us think about the length of camp for the first group. We're now leaning towards something between 5-10 days. Your comment about potential risks is also greatly appreciated, and we will think carefully about how much we will make public moving forward.
Thank you so much for your comment! I really appreciate that you've taken the time to be so thorough. I also appreciate how structured your comment is, and it makes it easy to follow. You bring up a lot of new points that we haven't thought about before, and have made us think more about how we can better cooperate with MBA/ business graduates and HR managers. I also found your list of certificates particularly useful. I was wondering, could you explain more about what you call 'partnership streams'?
A few days ago we published another post on this topic where we outline our plans for an operations camp this summer as a project to help reduce the operations talent gap in EA. It would be great if you get the chance to read over it and see if you have any input.
I used to work at EA Norway, which is a fee-paying membership society, and thought it might be useful to share more on how our funding worked. This is just meant as an example, and not as an argument for or against membership societies. (Here's a longer comment explaining how we organise things at EA Norway.)
I can't speak to EA Norway's current situation, as I no longer have any position at EA Norway (other than being a paying member). However, I can say what it was like in 2018-2021 when I was Executive Director (ED). The total income from the membership fee roughly covered the cost of the general assembly. Most of our funding came from a community building grant from the Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA). However, the board made sure to fundraise enough from private donors for my salary. The two main reasons for this was to I) diversify our funding, and II) enable us to make longer term plans than CEAs grant periods.
When the board gave approval to accept the community building grant from CEA, we discussed that if at any point we did not want to follow CEAs guidelines and success metrics, we would pay back the remainder of the grant. This was definitely easier for us to say and truly mean when we had covered the ED's salary from other sources, as it meant that if we were to return the funding, we would still have at least one employee. We never ended up disagreeing so much with CEA that we wanted to return the funds, though we were definitely very vocal about any disagreements we had with the groups team at CEA and did push for some changes.
This is a tangent, but I thought I'd say a bit more about how we've done things at EA Norway, as some people might not know. This is not meant as an argument in any direction.
Every year, we have a general assembly for members of EA Norway. To be a member, you need to have paid the yearly membership fee (either to EA Norway or one of the approved student groups). The total income from the membership fee covers roughly the costs of organising the general assembly. The importance of the membership fee is mainly that it's a bar of entry to the organisation, makes it clear if you're a member or not, and it's nice and symbolic that the fees can cover the general assembly. However, I think the crucial thing about how we're organised at EA Norway isn't that members pay a fee, but that the general assembly is the supreme body of the organisation.
During the general assembly, the attending members vote on an election committee, board members, and community representatives. During the general assembly, the members can also bring forward and vote on changes to the statutes and resolutions. Resolutions are basically requests members have for the board, that they're asking the board to look into or comment on until the next general assembly. The general assembly also need to approve an annual report of activities and a financial report.
The election committee is responsible for finding candidates for the different positions, and nominate candidates to the board ahead of the next general assembly.
The board is responsible for setting a strategy for the organisation and assessing the Executive Director. Historically, the board has set 3-year strategies for the org, including objectives and metrics for those objectives. The Executive Director is tasked with carrying out that strategy and need to regularly report on the progress of the metrics to the board. Redacted meeting minutes from each board meeting are made available to the members in an online community folder.
Community representatives are available to members who want to raise small or big issues that they feel like they can't raise elsewhere. They can't have any other position at the organisation. Per the statutes, the community representatives are to be involved as early as possible in any internal conflict, breach of statutes or ethical guidelines, and other matters that might be harmful for the members or EA Norway.
Really love this, and definitely think you're on to something - thanks for posting! I'd also add that if there are certain things that you don't enjoy or find aversive, you should consider looking for co-organisers who find the those things fun and rewarding. Like with startups, you should generally be two instead of one. And for a lot of people, it's also more fun to do things together than alone.
I'm grateful you've asked this question, as I've been really curious about this myself and have considered asking the same question. I know I should be careful when comparing myself with others, but I only have experience from one organisation where I have also been in charge of deciding number of hours we should work and how to track it. It feels nice to know that what I've been doing isn't totally off.
Here's what we do at our ~3 year old organisation with 3-4 employees: We use Toggl for tracking hours we actually work and a separate spreadsheet to track number of hours we're at work. We estimate that 6 hours on Toggl is about 7.5 hours at work. The extra 1.5 hours are breaks, usually consisting of many 5 min breaks and one 30 min break (we don't count lunch).
I usually track 6-7 hours of actual work in a regular day ( I work 5 days a week). Some weeks I track 4-5 hours most days, and then 8-10 hours some days. I try to regulate my hours so that each week is more or less the same. In weeks where I work a lot over 6 hours per day, I schedule a day off in the coming week.
I don't have that much time for deep work. Maybe 1-4 hours per week. In my current role, not that much of my work requires deep work, though I should probably be doing 3-5 hours of this per week.
Thanks for sharing, this is great! I found it particularly useful to read how many hours you spend on each activity and the objectives and key results you've planned for 2020.
I was a bit surprised that you've used a quarter (250/932 hours) of your time on personally learning directly related to EA. How much do you think the hours you spent on learning have contributed to the positive outcomes of EA Toronto? You wrote "Finally, without independent learning, another wild guess seems to say that the other two thirds of EATO's strategy updates and insights would not exist". Does this mean that you partly focused on learning about strategy and evaluation?
Also super cool that you directed around 42,000 CAD to MF!!
Thanks for your feedback! We have ended up going for a 4-7 day camp for people with 1-2 years of experience. I've noted down your ideas for a future iteration of the camp.
And thanks for your offer! You've been very helpful so far, and it would be great to discuss more at a later time.
Thanks for explaining! I wasn't familiar with the term, but I feel like I know understand better what it entails and the different ways it could look like.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment! We've noted down all your points, and found especially the one about signalling fit and thoughts on the role of national/local groups very interesting and valuable.
Thank you for your comments! You've particularly made us think about the length of camp for the first group. We're now leaning towards something between 5-10 days. Your comment about potential risks is also greatly appreciated, and we will think carefully about how much we will make public moving forward.
Thank you so much for your comment! I really appreciate that you've taken the time to be so thorough. I also appreciate how structured your comment is, and it makes it easy to follow. You bring up a lot of new points that we haven't thought about before, and have made us think more about how we can better cooperate with MBA/ business graduates and HR managers. I also found your list of certificates particularly useful. I was wondering, could you explain more about what you call 'partnership streams'?
A few days ago we published another post on this topic where we outline our plans for an operations camp this summer as a project to help reduce the operations talent gap in EA. It would be great if you get the chance to read over it and see if you have any input.