One mechanism that could solve this without causing interpersonal grief is some sort of third party exit poll platform for funding applications, basically a “Glassdoor for Philanthropy” which would make it common knowledge which funds do fast turnarounds and other desiderata.
For the anonymous grantee thing, maybe you say something like “no more than 10% of falcon donations will be to anonymous parties”. I think it’s principled to be boundedly transparent, it’s like principled lessetarianism
That might solve the issue of applicants choosing where to apply, but I don’t think glassdoor-style data would make AWF any happier about Austin bringing up the unfavorable comparison in his marketing copy.
Totally agree—but Austin could sidestep that by just pointing to “our Gd4Phil score is really good” and not feel any need to point out anything about anyone else’s score
One mechanism that could solve this without causing interpersonal grief is some sort of third party exit poll platform for funding applications, basically a “Glassdoor for Philanthropy” which would make it common knowledge which funds do fast turnarounds and other desiderata.
For the anonymous grantee thing, maybe you say something like “no more than 10% of falcon donations will be to anonymous parties”. I think it’s principled to be boundedly transparent, it’s like principled lessetarianism
That might solve the issue of applicants choosing where to apply, but I don’t think glassdoor-style data would make AWF any happier about Austin bringing up the unfavorable comparison in his marketing copy.
Totally agree—but Austin could sidestep that by just pointing to “our Gd4Phil score is really good” and not feel any need to point out anything about anyone else’s score