Basically everything Jonas and Michelle have said on this sounds right to me as well.
Maybe a minor difference:
I certainly agree that, in general, donor preferences are very important for us to pay attention to.
However, I think the “bar” implied by Michelle’s “important for all the donations to be at least somewhat explicable to the majority of its donors” is slightly too high.
I instead think that it’s important that a clear majority of donors endorses our overall decision procedure. [Or, if they don’t, then I think we should be aware that we’re probably going to lose those donations.] I think this would ideally be compatible with only most donations being somewhat explicable (and a decent fraction, probably a majority, to be more strongly explicable).
Though I would be interested to learn if EAIF donors disagreed with this.
(It’s a bit unclear how to weigh both donors and grants here. I think the right weights to use in this context are somewhere in between uniform weights across grants/donors and weights propotional to grant/donation size, while being closer to the latter.)
Basically everything Jonas and Michelle have said on this sounds right to me as well.
Maybe a minor difference:
I certainly agree that, in general, donor preferences are very important for us to pay attention to.
However, I think the “bar” implied by Michelle’s “important for all the donations to be at least somewhat explicable to the majority of its donors” is slightly too high.
I instead think that it’s important that a clear majority of donors endorses our overall decision procedure. [Or, if they don’t, then I think we should be aware that we’re probably going to lose those donations.] I think this would ideally be compatible with only most donations being somewhat explicable (and a decent fraction, probably a majority, to be more strongly explicable).
Though I would be interested to learn if EAIF donors disagreed with this.
(It’s a bit unclear how to weigh both donors and grants here. I think the right weights to use in this context are somewhere in between uniform weights across grants/donors and weights propotional to grant/donation size, while being closer to the latter.)