In principle, the zero point is supposed to signify equivalent to burning the money, and negative signifies net-negative EV (neglecting financial cost of the grant). In practice, speaking personally, if I weakly think a grant is a bit net negative, but it’s not particularly worrying nor something I feel confident about, I usually give it a score that’s well below the funding threshold, but still positive (so that if other grantmakers are more confidently in favor of the grant, they can more likely outvote me here). If I were to confidently believe that a grant was of zero net value, I would give it a vote of zero.
I personally give a negative value and (when I have low certainty) flag that I’m willing to change/delete my votes if other people feel strongly, so as to not unduly tank the results. I think LTFF briefly experimented with weighted voting in the past but we’ve moved against it (I forgot why).
In principle, the zero point is supposed to signify equivalent to burning the money, and negative signifies net-negative EV (neglecting financial cost of the grant). In practice, speaking personally, if I weakly think a grant is a bit net negative, but it’s not particularly worrying nor something I feel confident about, I usually give it a score that’s well below the funding threshold, but still positive (so that if other grantmakers are more confidently in favor of the grant, they can more likely outvote me here). If I were to confidently believe that a grant was of zero net value, I would give it a vote of zero.
I personally give a negative value and (when I have low certainty) flag that I’m willing to change/delete my votes if other people feel strongly, so as to not unduly tank the results. I think LTFF briefly experimented with weighted voting in the past but we’ve moved against it (I forgot why).