I suggested on Toby's recent post that a poll might be helpful on the issue of running critical posts by orgs. That can't be done in a comment, so here's my attempt at a poll (which was harder to write than I expected!)
Definitions
It is somewhat challenging to define post that is critical. I'm going to make at least an incomplete attempt, in an attempt to limit the extent of the variance that comes from different assumptions about what qualifies rather than actual differences in opinion. So let's say that the scope is ~ criticism which could reasonably be expected to materially damage the reputation of an organization or individual if were read without a response (this is a mild reworking of language in this comment by Toby). Criticism that implies misconduct or a significant lapse in judgment would certainly count. Mere disagreements would generally not.
For purposes of this poll, something fairly posted as commentary on the criticized person/organization's semi-recent EA Forum post, or in response to a recent article in non-EA media, or in response to a semi-recent report / blog post / etc. by the criticized person or organization itself is expressly excluded from the scope of post that is critical. These can be seen as continuations of an existing conversation started by someone else, and I think adding them to the mix of a single-dimension poll would create too much noise.
Meaningful advance notice means enough notice to give the person or organization a reasonable opportunity to reply at the time the criticism is posted. It does not imply that the critic provides the organization as much time as it would like, and does not require agreeing to any back-and-forth, or to make changes to the post.
Follow-up question
Presumably, what constitutes meaningful advance notice will depend on the specific circumstances at hand. That being said, conditioned on a conclusion that providing such notice is desirable:
(the intended midpoint is a week or so)
For purposes of this poll, one might consider an "ordinary" case to involve moderate complexity (such as input/involvement from multiple people at the organization but not much in the way of new investigation or analysis) for a proper reply. Some discussion has suggested that organizational size might matter. One might consider the respondent to be an organization with ~7 FTEs, and assume that no special circumstances existed.
I think it's a good default rule, but think there are circumstances in which that presumption is rebutted.
My vote is also influenced by my inability to define "criticism" with good precision -- and the resultant ambiguity and possible overinclusion pushes my vote toward the midpoint.