I think this situation is pretty different. In my email, I said we would not be able to provide feedback, but I decided to provide feedback anyway. The grants were reviewed by other fund managers internally, who agreed that your application was not a good fit for the fund.
I will disclose the email I sent to Caleb below. In his defence: he did reply with feedback after this email for which I’m thankful. Unfortunately the feedback contained factual errors about our application and company, and made it clear that our application was not carefully reviewed (or reviewed at all). We recently got another application rejected by Caleb, even though I specifically asked for someone else to review it too, because I believe he has something against me (no clue what that would be since he always ignored me and we never met).
I also don’t think I made factual errors when evaluating your application. I don’t want to publicly share details of your grants, but it’s probably at least somewhat helpful to have it on the record that I disagree. Other fund managers and I have actually reviewed your applications. I didn’t evaluate all of them due to your request, but I do send the rejection emails.
Thanks for the reply Caleb. I’m not arguing it’s not a good fit here (although I disagree with that too, obviously, otherwise I wouldn’t apply to EAIF). Ultimately you guys decide the fit. What I’m arguing is that I felt disrespected by our interactions, and it seems I’m not alone.
I stand by that your feedback contained multiple factual errors. An example is the feedback mentioning we don’t have transparent financials even though all of that was linked clearly (and was even publicly available at that time). Happy to go into other examples but I don’t think we’re going to agree on this.
FWIW I’m happy for you to share public details of our grant application, we’re transparent. I don’t think the public will disagree with you our project is not a fit, because other funders have also declined our Profit for Good ideas so far.
I think this situation is pretty different. In my email, I said we would not be able to provide feedback, but I decided to provide feedback anyway. The grants were reviewed by other fund managers internally, who agreed that your application was not a good fit for the fund.
I also don’t think I made factual errors when evaluating your application. I don’t want to publicly share details of your grants, but it’s probably at least somewhat helpful to have it on the record that I disagree. Other fund managers and I have actually reviewed your applications. I didn’t evaluate all of them due to your request, but I do send the rejection emails.
Thanks for the reply Caleb. I’m not arguing it’s not a good fit here (although I disagree with that too, obviously, otherwise I wouldn’t apply to EAIF). Ultimately you guys decide the fit. What I’m arguing is that I felt disrespected by our interactions, and it seems I’m not alone.
I stand by that your feedback contained multiple factual errors. An example is the feedback mentioning we don’t have transparent financials even though all of that was linked clearly (and was even publicly available at that time). Happy to go into other examples but I don’t think we’re going to agree on this.
FWIW I’m happy for you to share public details of our grant application, we’re transparent. I don’t think the public will disagree with you our project is not a fit, because other funders have also declined our Profit for Good ideas so far.