What Jason has said above is the thrust of my inquiry. If Open Phil said that in weighing the grant impact (as a hits-based grant) the private information they had justified the grant (which is not really what was in the comment on behalf of Open Phil). Then I would accept that as a pragmatic response based on the real world constraints to their grant-making, even if the rationale does not answer my own questions about the grant. I would expect a little more detail about what the grant actually entails, since it is about the least descriptive grant on the website.
It does open up questions about the importance we place on accountability and transparency in regard to norm- and priority-setting within EA and philanthropic giving.
That probably came across as more aggressive than I meant to be. More to say that I agree with your sentiment but wanted to leave space in my post for me to be wrong and for Open Phil to provide a response
I agree with your sentiment here, but it might be skipping a few steps ahead in questioning the grant's development. This is why (while many parts can be considered subjective critique) I have tried to avoid being prescriptive about what might have happened 'behind the scenes'. Open Phil's new bar does make this a more present/pressing issue.
My apologies, not my intention at all. I am new to posting it so would accept any recommendation on how to edit it for clarity.
[edit: this was a lazy response and rightfully downvoted. In terms of recommendations, I meant the best way to edit my post using the norms of the forum - i.e., to strikethrough and replace text, add a footnote, or just edit the text. I do wholly and unequivocally apologies that my original post can be read as inferring that nepotism directly affected the relationship between Open Phil and Helena]
I agree with the points you have raised about subjectivity and my own personal views. And included the footnote about that collection of dot points being my very subjective read of how things developed. While I have tried my best to be attentive in my presentation of my read of the grant, some of it is just my analysis and it is is hard to present it without that color. I think it is legitimate that my subjectivity should influence your perception of my perspective and how seriously you think my inquiry should be taken.
I do think that there is enough objective detail given in my post for it to stand up to scrutiny, in particular the idea that Open Phil could have provided more detail on the grant to clarify and remove some of the concerns I have raised. I am not saying in any way that I have all the answers to the questions raised by the grant profile.
What Jason has said above is the thrust of my inquiry. If Open Phil said that in weighing the grant impact (as a hits-based grant) the private information they had justified the grant (which is not really what was in the comment on behalf of Open Phil). Then I would accept that as a pragmatic response based on the real world constraints to their grant-making, even if the rationale does not answer my own questions about the grant. I would expect a little more detail about what the grant actually entails, since it is about the least descriptive grant on the website.
It does open up questions about the importance we place on accountability and transparency in regard to norm- and priority-setting within EA and philanthropic giving.
That probably came across as more aggressive than I meant to be. More to say that I agree with your sentiment but wanted to leave space in my post for me to be wrong and for Open Phil to provide a response
Edited, as I have the part about potential relationships between the funder and recipient organizations
I agree with your sentiment here, but it might be skipping a few steps ahead in questioning the grant's development. This is why (while many parts can be considered subjective critique) I have tried to avoid being prescriptive about what might have happened 'behind the scenes'. Open Phil's new bar does make this a more present/pressing issue.
My apologies, not my intention at all. I am new to posting it so would accept any recommendation on how to edit it for clarity.[edit: this was a lazy response and rightfully downvoted. In terms of recommendations, I meant the best way to edit my post using the norms of the forum - i.e., to strikethrough and replace text, add a footnote, or just edit the text. I do wholly and unequivocally apologies that my original post can be read as inferring that nepotism directly affected the relationship between Open Phil and Helena]
Hi Chris,
I agree with the points you have raised about subjectivity and my own personal views. And included the footnote about that collection of dot points being my very subjective read of how things developed. While I have tried my best to be attentive in my presentation of my read of the grant, some of it is just my analysis and it is is hard to present it without that color. I think it is legitimate that my subjectivity should influence your perception of my perspective and how seriously you think my inquiry should be taken.
I do think that there is enough objective detail given in my post for it to stand up to scrutiny, in particular the idea that Open Phil could have provided more detail on the grant to clarify and remove some of the concerns I have raised. I am not saying in any way that I have all the answers to the questions raised by the grant profile.
The OP biosecurity and PP team just gave one recently for health security policy work in Australia, albeit a smaller grant