Now that the dust has settled a bit, I’m curious what Habryka & the other fund managers think of the level of community engagement that occurred on this report...
What kinds of engagement seemed helpful?
What kinds of engagement seemed unnecessary?
What kinds of engagement were emotionally expensive to address?
Does it seem sustainable to write up grantmaker reasoning at this level of detail, for each grantmaking round going forward?
Does it seem sustainable to engage with questions & comments from the community at this level of detail, for each grantmaking round going forward?
I have a bunch of complicated thoughts here. Overall I have been quite happy with the reception to this, and think the outcomes of the conversations on the post have been quite good.
I am a bit more time-strapped than usual, so I will probably wait on writing a longer retrospective until I set aside a bunch of time to answer questions on the next set of writeups.
Now that the dust has settled a bit, I’m curious what Habryka & the other fund managers think of the level of community engagement that occurred on this report...
What kinds of engagement seemed helpful?
What kinds of engagement seemed unnecessary?
What kinds of engagement were emotionally expensive to address?
Does it seem sustainable to write up grantmaker reasoning at this level of detail, for each grantmaking round going forward?
Does it seem sustainable to engage with questions & comments from the community at this level of detail, for each grantmaking round going forward?
I have a bunch of complicated thoughts here. Overall I have been quite happy with the reception to this, and think the outcomes of the conversations on the post have been quite good.
I am a bit more time-strapped than usual, so I will probably wait on writing a longer retrospective until I set aside a bunch of time to answer questions on the next set of writeups.