Funding governance filtering
Current-best guess at how these parts of organization will happen.
Funding
Eric provided initial funding, with contributions from EA philanthropists and organizations allowing more flexibility and faster setup time. Shares of the project were offered during crowdfunding. These are transferable and can be used to pay rent (at a discount rate, to incentivize early contribution).
Governance
One dictator who appoints other localized dictators, ability to make decisions without red tape or meetings, and personal responsibility for projects. Provision for removing the primary dictator via a majority shares and/or long term residents vote of no confidence.
Filtering
Open to visits (~1 week) by anyone who a current resident agrees to be the contact point for or high-status person / organization recommends. Short term residents have video calls or other interviews to gauge their compatibility and goals. Long-term residents can veto people they expect to be significantly net-negative.
Parents:
I would very much encourage the norm here to be, “If you feel the need to veto something, explicitly start a double-crux.”
Any time a veto happens, this inherently means there is a disagreement that hasn’t been resolved. The bottleneck for Double Crux (CX²) seems to be “explicitly identifying moments in-the-moment where it would be good to use CX²”. Veto situations are an ideal moment.
Of course if that doesn’t work for whatever reason, I’d be happy with there being veto powers anyway.
nods, definitely want to encourage discussion. However, people may not want their reasons for vetoing widely known, or even the fact that it was them who vetoed someone. The structure has to be carefully designed. I have a vague plan, but best not go into that level of zoom until the team is together, I think.