There’s no strict ‘minimum number’—sometimes the grant is clearly above or below our bar and we don’t consult anyone, and sometimes we’re really uncertain or in disagreement, and we end up consulting lots of people (I think some grants have had 5+).
I will also say that each fund is somewhat intentionally composed of fund managers with somewhat varying viewpoints who trust different sets of experts, and the voting structure is such that if any individual fund manager is really excited about an application, it generally gets funded. As a result, I think in practice, there’s more diversity in what gets funded than you might expect from a single grantmaking body, and there’s less risk that you won’t get funded just because a particular person dislikes you.
I’d add that fund managers seem aware of it being bad if everyone relies on the opinion of a single person/advisor, and generally seem to think carefully about it.
There’s no strict ‘minimum number’—sometimes the grant is clearly above or below our bar and we don’t consult anyone, and sometimes we’re really uncertain or in disagreement, and we end up consulting lots of people (I think some grants have had 5+).
I will also say that each fund is somewhat intentionally composed of fund managers with somewhat varying viewpoints who trust different sets of experts, and the voting structure is such that if any individual fund manager is really excited about an application, it generally gets funded. As a result, I think in practice, there’s more diversity in what gets funded than you might expect from a single grantmaking body, and there’s less risk that you won’t get funded just because a particular person dislikes you.
What Asya said.
I’d add that fund managers seem aware of it being bad if everyone relies on the opinion of a single person/advisor, and generally seem to think carefully about it.
That’s great to hear—I did not know that
Thanks for elaborating! Your process seems robustly good, and I appreciate the extra emphasis on diverse viewpoints & experts.