On 2, I agree with Buck that the two key bottlenecks—especially if we weight grants by their expected impact—were “Good applicants with good proposals for implementing good project ideas” and “Grantmaker capacity to solicit or generate new project ideas”.
I think I’ve had a stronger sense than at least some other fund managers that “Grantmaker capacity to evaluate applications” was also a significant bottleneck, though I would rank it somewhat below the above two, and I think it tends to be a larger bottleneck for grants that are more ‘marginal’ anyway, which diminishes its impact-weighted importance. I’m still somewhat worried that our lack of capacity (both time and lack of some abilities) could in some cases lead to a “false negative” on a highly impactful grant, especially due to our current way of aggregating opinions between fund managers.
On 2, I agree with Buck that the two key bottlenecks—especially if we weight grants by their expected impact—were “Good applicants with good proposals for implementing good project ideas” and “Grantmaker capacity to solicit or generate new project ideas”.
I think I’ve had a stronger sense than at least some other fund managers that “Grantmaker capacity to evaluate applications” was also a significant bottleneck, though I would rank it somewhat below the above two, and I think it tends to be a larger bottleneck for grants that are more ‘marginal’ anyway, which diminishes its impact-weighted importance. I’m still somewhat worried that our lack of capacity (both time and lack of some abilities) could in some cases lead to a “false negative” on a highly impactful grant, especially due to our current way of aggregating opinions between fund managers.