To clarify the structural reasons to which I alluded—it’s already problematic for the community that OP et al. control so much of the available funding. Having mostly independent funding streams available is important, so having OP et al. putting a thumb on the scale to influence allocation of those independent streams poses significant costs in my book.
A necessary prerequisite for your proposal is that OP et al. move toward the cause prio you advocate. But such a movement would presumably cause OP’s own funding decisions to shift in a significant manner. OP et al. changing allocations of its own funds doesn’t pose the same problems to funding independence, and doesn’t require confronting the likelihood that EGI fundraising from outside sources is less cost-effective on a dollar basis in AW than in GHD.
It’s not clear to me whether the majority view that AW is currently underfunded would survive a significant reallocation in OP et al.’s allocation of its own funds. Even if it did, there would still be significant support in the community for the view that the marginal independent-funding dollar should go to GHD or GCR work (because there already is), and we’d still be facing the question of whether it was appropriate for OP et al. to be exercising pressure on this question.
To clarify the structural reasons to which I alluded—it’s already problematic for the community that OP et al. control so much of the available funding. Having mostly independent funding streams available is important, so having OP et al. putting a thumb on the scale to influence allocation of those independent streams poses significant costs in my book.
A necessary prerequisite for your proposal is that OP et al. move toward the cause prio you advocate. But such a movement would presumably cause OP’s own funding decisions to shift in a significant manner. OP et al. changing allocations of its own funds doesn’t pose the same problems to funding independence, and doesn’t require confronting the likelihood that EGI fundraising from outside sources is less cost-effective on a dollar basis in AW than in GHD.
It’s not clear to me whether the majority view that AW is currently underfunded would survive a significant reallocation in OP et al.’s allocation of its own funds. Even if it did, there would still be significant support in the community for the view that the marginal independent-funding dollar should go to GHD or GCR work (because there already is), and we’d still be facing the question of whether it was appropriate for OP et al. to be exercising pressure on this question.