For example, the OP could have contacted the person he talked to at the EAGx and asked her whether his interpretation of what she said were correct. If you read OP’s other post about a conflict resulting from asking for feedback about the grant application, you have one datapoint where someone was talking with him about the unsuccessful grant application, and was surprised by OPs interpretation.
As I mentioned in the comment, in case of this post, unless the person he talked to decides to reveal herself (and she may have good reasons not to do that), I don’t see any reasonable way to ‘clarify’ this. The OP makes a lot of statements about what was his interpretation—unfortunately even if I completely believe him what he writes was his interpretation, I have some doubts the other person would agree this is what she meant, and I have even more doubts about the next inferential step, where the proposed explanation involves ‘EA leadership’ talking with her.
Object level: I’d bet EAIF doesn’t have a policy “don’t fund EA efforts in Romania”. Maybe someone from EAIF can confirm.
I don’t think Rob’s post covers this case—and if it does, I basically disagree such norm would be good.
For example, the OP could have contacted the person he talked to at the EAGx and asked her whether his interpretation of what she said were correct.
That is a fair point. I thought of doing that but I ended up choosing not to because I’ve been overthinking this post for quite a while and I wanted to get it over with. But now that you mention it I realize that it is indeed important, so I will do it :)
Object level: I’d bet EAIF doesn’t have a policy “don’t fund EA efforts in Romania”. Maybe someone from EAIF can confirm.
I would also bet the same, sorry if I gave the wrong impression! I just think they have a higher bar for Romanian projects, which again, is fair enough as long as there is more transparency regarding how countries are prioritized.
For example, the OP could have contacted the person he talked to at the EAGx and asked her whether his interpretation of what she said were correct. If you read OP’s other post about a conflict resulting from asking for feedback about the grant application, you have one datapoint where someone was talking with him about the unsuccessful grant application, and was surprised by OPs interpretation.
As I mentioned in the comment, in case of this post, unless the person he talked to decides to reveal herself (and she may have good reasons not to do that), I don’t see any reasonable way to ‘clarify’ this. The OP makes a lot of statements about what was his interpretation—unfortunately even if I completely believe him what he writes was his interpretation, I have some doubts the other person would agree this is what she meant, and I have even more doubts about the next inferential step, where the proposed explanation involves ‘EA leadership’ talking with her.
Object level: I’d bet EAIF doesn’t have a policy “don’t fund EA efforts in Romania”. Maybe someone from EAIF can confirm.
I don’t think Rob’s post covers this case—and if it does, I basically disagree such norm would be good.
That is a fair point. I thought of doing that but I ended up choosing not to because I’ve been overthinking this post for quite a while and I wanted to get it over with. But now that you mention it I realize that it is indeed important, so I will do it :)
I would also bet the same, sorry if I gave the wrong impression! I just think they have a higher bar for Romanian projects, which again, is fair enough as long as there is more transparency regarding how countries are prioritized.