Ryan Kidd

But I would say that like for governance, there's always been like a bigger fish.

And so we've never felt that it's necessary to overweight governance beyond what our mentor selection committee indicates.

In fact, that's the primary determination of what tracks get selected, right?

Is our mentor selection committee, which is somewhere between 20 to 40 top researchers, strategists, et cetera, org leaders that we survey.

When everybody applies as a mentor, we decide the mentor level based on the feedback from our mentor selection committee, who gets in.

with some additional caveat that we also have some diversity picks and minimum requirements, because we want to support a great breadth of research, and we think that the Mentor Selection Committee on the whole might be biased in some ways as well.

So we try and really talk to the experts when it comes to picking the agendas.

And it so happens that governance researchers have historically been

relatively low rated by our committee, which contains many governance researchers.

I think I would go so far as to say that governance research is harder to do well

in some critical sense.

It's harder to see what is the actionable thing to do in some ways.

Now, everyone who has their specific governance agenda, I would say, doesn't feel this way for a good reason.

Within their agenda, they have clear, actionable things to work on.

But I think on the whole, there's just so many more possible technical directions to pursue that are high leverage in some ways as well.

I think a lot of the governance stuff is like, oh, we're trying to build, this is not talking about advocacy now, right?

This is talking about technical governance.

We're trying to build technical governance solutions such that if an administration so deems them worth deploying, that we have the capacity to do that.

We actually have the solutions that can be deployed, which is very important, right?

But I would say that like,