Personally, if I was a grantmaker, based on your EA Forum presence, I would reject your application to create/grow a new national-level group if you applied from basically anywhere.
Huh? It’s a little unfair to say this without substantiating. I looked at OP’s Forum history to see if there was something egregious there and didn’t see anything that would justify a claim like this. Could you elaborate more?
While I don’t want to go into discussing specific details, I want to make clear I don’t think ‘not writing something egregious in the forum’ is the standard which should be applied here.
I don’t think the original poster’s Forum history shows this. If you disagree, it’s probably important to figure out if the crux is you imagine a different bar, or you think the forum history provides little data / or positive data about meeting the bar I mean.
Since you’ve obviously thought a lot about this issue, it would be interesting to hear more about the extent to which your bar is dependent on the adjectives “funded” and/or “full-time.” Do you think the bar is significantly lower for a half-FTE, quarter-FTE, or expenses-only funding? I don’t mean with respect to the original poster, but more generally—especially in countries where the primary language is neither English nor another language with a significant amount of EA content.
I think Jan took a reasonable approach here by noting a significant problem without pointing to specific details, although I understand why people might disagree. I think commenting that the original poster’s personal suitability to create/grow a new national-level group is a much more plausible basis for denial is appropriate here—given that the poster is implying that ethnic stereotypes (or worse) may have contributed to the grant denial.
At the same time, I think a more detailed narrative discussion about the original poster’s suitability—unless that feedback was specifically requested—would be more than is necessary to respond to the implied accusation, and would risk unduly derailing the comment thread away from the substantive issue the poster is seeking to raise. Rather, Jan told those who were interested in more information where to look (“EA Forum presence”) to evaluate this possibility for themselves. For what it’s worth, I agree with Jan that the original poster’s forum history would justify a grant denial.
Huh? It’s a little unfair to say this without substantiating. I looked at OP’s Forum history to see if there was something egregious there and didn’t see anything that would justify a claim like this. Could you elaborate more?
While I don’t want to go into discussing specific details, I want to make clear I don’t think ‘not writing something egregious in the forum’ is the standard which should be applied here.
In my view, national-level groups are potentially important and good but need to be able to do a lot of complex work to be really successful. This means my bar for ‘who should do this as a funded full-time job’ is roughly similar to ‘who should work at median-impact roles at CEA’ or ‘work as a generalist at Rethink Priorities’ or similar.
I don’t think the original poster’s Forum history shows this. If you disagree, it’s probably important to figure out if the crux is you imagine a different bar, or you think the forum history provides little data / or positive data about meeting the bar I mean.
Since you’ve obviously thought a lot about this issue, it would be interesting to hear more about the extent to which your bar is dependent on the adjectives “funded” and/or “full-time.” Do you think the bar is significantly lower for a half-FTE, quarter-FTE, or expenses-only funding? I don’t mean with respect to the original poster, but more generally—especially in countries where the primary language is neither English nor another language with a significant amount of EA content.
I think Jan took a reasonable approach here by noting a significant problem without pointing to specific details, although I understand why people might disagree. I think commenting that the original poster’s personal suitability to create/grow a new national-level group is a much more plausible basis for denial is appropriate here—given that the poster is implying that ethnic stereotypes (or worse) may have contributed to the grant denial.
At the same time, I think a more detailed narrative discussion about the original poster’s suitability—unless that feedback was specifically requested—would be more than is necessary to respond to the implied accusation, and would risk unduly derailing the comment thread away from the substantive issue the poster is seeking to raise. Rather, Jan told those who were interested in more information where to look (“EA Forum presence”) to evaluate this possibility for themselves. For what it’s worth, I agree with Jan that the original poster’s forum history would justify a grant denial.