I’m part of the Meta Fund committee and was the person who decided against giving feedback in the aforementioned cases.
Unfortunately, giving good feedback is very difficult and something the Meta Fund committee currently isn’t reliably able to provide. I have provided candidates with feedback when I felt I could give easily understandable practical suggestions that would actually lead to the project being more likely to be funded in the future (or explained why this was not likely to happen) and I could do this without investing more than a couple of hours per applicant.
In practice, this sadly means applicants do not get provided with feedback very often (I would need to check, but it might be in 20% of cases). I think giving good feedback is very valuable, but this is unfortunately currently beyond our resources.
I feel frustrated by the lack of feedback. The EA Hotel seems to be one of the most discussed projects born out of the EA community in the last months and it prominently struggles for funding. I think I’ve read most of the related discussions on the forum and haven‘t seen a case made why the project isn‘t as promising as it might sound after reading the EA Hotel funding pledges. I understand that your time is limited, but for the sake of cooperation within EA I’m saddened that there seems to have been no communication between you guys at all. :l
I agree that I’d like to see even more cooperation within EA. However, I’d like to push back against this comment a little bit, because there are a couple of details here that I think could actually be negative if taken literally.
“The EA Hotel seems to be one of the most discussed projects born out of the EA community in the last months”
Being discussed a lot, or even receiving a lot of positive online comments, is not a good reason to receive funding. I think it’s really important to keep a high bar for charity evaluation and not play favourites just because the charity was started by ‘one of our own’ or has attracted a lot of attention on the EA Forum. If groups are more likely to get funding after getting a lot of online engagement, it could encourage them to write clickbaity articles rather than do more important work.
“I think I’ve read most of the related discussions on the forum and haven‘t seen a case made why the project isn‘t as promising as it might sound after reading the EA Hotel funding pledges. I understand that your time is limited, but for the sake of cooperation within EA I’m saddened that there seems to have been no communication between you guys at all.”
I have seen a lot of people within the EA community be quite generous with their time critiquing the EA Hotel, including long email exchanges which are summarised in the link above. I place a very high value on grantmakers’ time. If they don’t think an applicant is likely to improve to the point where they might plausibly receive a grant, I don’t think grantmakers should spend time giving feedback.
I know that sounds really mean, but I can’t stand the idea of people spending hours writing feedback for a charity they know they’re not going to fund, when there’s so much other work they could be doing.
Being discussed a lot, or even receiving a lot of positive online comments, is not a good reason to receive funding. I think it’s really important to keep a high bar for charity evaluation and not play favourites just because the charity was started by ‘one of our own’ or has attracted a lot of attention on the EA Forum.
I don’t think the previous comment can charitably be read as saying that ‘it’s been much discussed, so it should be funded’. I read them as saying that they “feel frustrated by lack of feedback”, because the project is “one of the most discussed” and they’ve “read most of the related discussions on the forum and haven‘t seen a case made why the project isn‘t as promising as it might sound” and yet it still “prominently struggles for funding.”
Thanks! I agree that giving good feedback isn’t easy.
It seems like the Long-Term Future Fund team is able to give more feedback (and more context in their grant reports) than the Meta Fund team. As far as I know, both teams are composed entirely of volunteers.
Do you have thoughts on why the Long-Term Future Fund is able to give more context about their grant-making than the Meta Fund?
Well, I’d assume this is because the LTFF team has more time available than the Meta Fund team. Plausibly largely driven by one volunteer who is very happy to spend a lot of time on the LTFF.
I’m part of the Meta Fund committee and was the person who decided against giving feedback in the aforementioned cases.
Unfortunately, giving good feedback is very difficult and something the Meta Fund committee currently isn’t reliably able to provide. I have provided candidates with feedback when I felt I could give easily understandable practical suggestions that would actually lead to the project being more likely to be funded in the future (or explained why this was not likely to happen) and I could do this without investing more than a couple of hours per applicant.
In practice, this sadly means applicants do not get provided with feedback very often (I would need to check, but it might be in 20% of cases). I think giving good feedback is very valuable, but this is unfortunately currently beyond our resources.
I feel frustrated by the lack of feedback. The EA Hotel seems to be one of the most discussed projects born out of the EA community in the last months and it prominently struggles for funding. I think I’ve read most of the related discussions on the forum and haven‘t seen a case made why the project isn‘t as promising as it might sound after reading the EA Hotel funding pledges. I understand that your time is limited, but for the sake of cooperation within EA I’m saddened that there seems to have been no communication between you guys at all. :l
I agree that I’d like to see even more cooperation within EA. However, I’d like to push back against this comment a little bit, because there are a couple of details here that I think could actually be negative if taken literally.
“The EA Hotel seems to be one of the most discussed projects born out of the EA community in the last months”
Being discussed a lot, or even receiving a lot of positive online comments, is not a good reason to receive funding. I think it’s really important to keep a high bar for charity evaluation and not play favourites just because the charity was started by ‘one of our own’ or has attracted a lot of attention on the EA Forum. If groups are more likely to get funding after getting a lot of online engagement, it could encourage them to write clickbaity articles rather than do more important work.
“I think I’ve read most of the related discussions on the forum and haven‘t seen a case made why the project isn‘t as promising as it might sound after reading the EA Hotel funding pledges. I understand that your time is limited, but for the sake of cooperation within EA I’m saddened that there seems to have been no communication between you guys at all.”
I have seen a lot of people within the EA community be quite generous with their time critiquing the EA Hotel, including long email exchanges which are summarised in the link above. I place a very high value on grantmakers’ time. If they don’t think an applicant is likely to improve to the point where they might plausibly receive a grant, I don’t think grantmakers should spend time giving feedback.
I know that sounds really mean, but I can’t stand the idea of people spending hours writing feedback for a charity they know they’re not going to fund, when there’s so much other work they could be doing.
I don’t think the previous comment can charitably be read as saying that ‘it’s been much discussed, so it should be funded’. I read them as saying that they “feel frustrated by lack of feedback”, because the project is “one of the most discussed” and they’ve “read most of the related discussions on the forum and haven‘t seen a case made why the project isn‘t as promising as it might sound” and yet it still “prominently struggles for funding.”
fwiw, some feedback from Nicole Ross & Julia Wise about EA Grants’ decision to not fund EA Hotel.
Thanks! I agree that giving good feedback isn’t easy.
It seems like the Long-Term Future Fund team is able to give more feedback (and more context in their grant reports) than the Meta Fund team. As far as I know, both teams are composed entirely of volunteers.
Do you have thoughts on why the Long-Term Future Fund is able to give more context about their grant-making than the Meta Fund?
Well, I’d assume this is because the LTFF team has more time available than the Meta Fund team. Plausibly largely driven by one volunteer who is very happy to spend a lot of time on the LTFF.
Yeah. I suppose alternative hypotheses include:
The LTFF team finds it easier to give good feedback than the Meta Fund team
The LTFF team is giving lower-quality feedback than the Meta Fund team