Here's an example committee structure that larger EA Uni Groups could use:

The Structure

(Focus on the green boxes. These are the 'main roles' discussed below. Other boxes are potential 'sub roles'/responsibilities that are variable and group specific. I don't discuss those)

The Main Roles

President (Manager type)

This 'role' could be done it several ways. It could be a single specific person. It could be an 'overseeing' role, combined with the 'audit' mentioned below. It could be simply split between the three other roles, who hold one another accountable and make strategic decisions as a collective.

Aim:

• Make sure everything gets done, to a suitable standard.
• Make sure that people are happy in their roles.
• Make overall decisions about how to allocate time/resources/focus across the below sub-roles.

Needs:

• Strong relationships with the other group organisers (other green boxes).
• Understanding of the strategic considerations related to EA Uni Groups.

Doesn't (Necessarily) Need:

• Much time, this can be done in a very basic way.
• Significant 'object-level' skills.
• Any 'in depth' EA knowledge (about specific cause areas, theories or community)

HEA Lead (Mentor type)

Aim:

• Help experienced members of the group to develop.
• Understand everyone's 'blockers to impact' - then help them overcome them.
• Create connections and friendships between engaged group members.
• Have conversations about people's careers and future steps.
• Organise events that help people develop and overcome blockers.

Needs:

• Lots of EA 'theory' knowledge, able to understand ideas that others may bring up, and raise counter-points for debates and concerns.
• Lots of EA 'community' knowledge, knows about and can to point people towards things that are interesting and relevant.
• Good interpersonal skills, able to talk with many people.
• Decently high social battery.
• Ideally some sort of 'EA clout', like an impressive achievement that others will want to emulate. I don't think this is vital though.
• Ideally an external network so that others can be connected.

Doesn't (Necessarily) Need:

• Organisational or logistical skills, this can be quite spontaneous.
• Written communication skills, most interaction in person.

Fellowships/Groups Lead (Logistics type)

This role might be redundant in smaller groups. In our group, this is valuable because we run Fellowships with several cohorts and several facilitators. This also means the Fellowships lead does not necessarily need to run the actual sessions. 

Aim:

• Organise all Fellowship logistics: times, dates, places, people, advertising.
• Advertise and select participants for the Fellowships.
• Find and support Facilitators for leading sessions.
• Review and improve Fellowship content.

Needs:

• Strong logistics and organising skills, especially being able to set and stick to deadlines.
• Strong communication skills, especially written.

Doesn't (Necessarily) Need:

• High amounts of EA knowledge, content is mostly from an established syllabus.
• Interpersonal skills, mostly a background role.

Outreach Lead (Events type)

Aim:

• Organise events that will engage new people - things that people can come along to as their first EA event.
  • (This could be ANY event - socials, talks, workshops, online, etc)
• Advertise events and activities.

Needs:

• Enthusiasm for EA and key ideas.
• Very strong interpersonal skills, ideally the type of person who can easily put everyone else at ease.
• Creativity, able to come up with interesting ideas that will engage new people.
• Decent logistics and organising skills (will depend on the complexity of events being run).
• Time and ability to spin several plates, and organise a few things concurrently.

Doesn't (Necessarily) Need:

• Much EA knowledge, talking mostly with less experienced people.
• A focus on working with individuals in depth.

Side Note - Audit

I'm aware some other groups have a 'Board' which might serve this role. I'm also unsure how important an 'external' audit role is, as opposed to people evaluating their own actions.

Aim:

• Evaluate group performance from and 'outside view'.
• Estimate the impact of group and programs, ideally with models.
• Red team ideas, strategies and plans.
• Generally be really annoying to all the other organisers :-)

Evaluation of the Model

Here's some reasons why I like this model:

• Recognises that you don't need 'all the skills' to be a good organiser.
  • My suspicion is that finding someone who's highly knowledgeable of EA, highly organised, has great interpersonal skills, has good judgement, and has enough time to lead the group, is very rare.
  • My suspicion is that finding someone with just two of those is relatively common, and actually that's all that's needed.
  • Only 1/4 roles actually needs very strong knowledge of EA and the community (although all roles clearly benefit from it).
  • Encourages more people to consider doing 'lead' organiser roles, because the stakes/requirements seem more attainable.
• Creates a fairly natural pathway for developing future organisers.
  • New members are generally enthusiastic and creative, so fit with the Outreach role.
  • This provides a way to test their ability and reliability, in advance of taking on a Fellowships role.
  • As people learn and develop their knowledge, and create connections with other group members, they become suitable for the Mentor role.
• Ensures people at all levels of engagement are catered for.
  • It's quite easy to focus completely on gaining members and neglect engaged people, or vice versa. Having a person for each 'engagement level' avoids this
• Clear division of responsibility. The roles can function basically autonomously - it doesn't require high amounts of connection or collaboration, which might be a blocker.

Here's some reasons why I dislike this model:

• The 'full version of the model requires three capable, autonomous organisers who are willing to take on decently high levels of responsibility.
  • Especially due to the 'isolation' of responsibilities, underperformance of one person could have knock-on effects for the development of the group overall.
  • It could be harder to cover for one another, if context is not shared between organisers.
• This is entirely theoretical. I've not tried this as a structure, and have no idea if it works in practice.