I really appreciated this report, it seemed one of the most honest and open communications to come out of Open Philanthropy, and it helped me connect with your priorities and vision. A couple of specific things I liked.
I appreciated the comment about the Wytham Abby purchase, recognising the flow on effects Open Phil decisions can have on the wider community, and even just acknowledging a mistake—something which is both difficult and uncommon in leadership.
”But I still think I personally made a mistake in not objecting to this grant back when the initial decision was made and I was co-CEO. My assessment then was that this wasn’t a major risk to Open Philanthropy institutionally, so it wasn’t my place to try to stop it. I missed how something that could be parodied as an “effective altruist castle” would become a symbol of EA hypocrisy and self-servingness, causing reputational harm to many people and organizations who had nothing to do with the decision or the building.”
I also liked the admission on slow movement on lead exposure. I had wondered why I hadn’t been hearing more on that front given the huge opportunities there and the potential for something like the equivalent of a disease “elimination” with a huge effect on future generations. From what I’ve seen, my instinct is that it had potential to perhaps be a more clear/urgent/cost-effective focus than other Open Phil areas like air quality.
I really appreciated this report, it seemed one of the most honest and open communications to come out of Open Philanthropy, and it helped me connect with your priorities and vision. A couple of specific things I liked.
I appreciated the comment about the Wytham Abby purchase, recognising the flow on effects Open Phil decisions can have on the wider community, and even just acknowledging a mistake—something which is both difficult and uncommon in leadership.
”But I still think I personally made a mistake in not objecting to this grant back when the initial decision was made and I was co-CEO. My assessment then was that this wasn’t a major risk to Open Philanthropy institutionally, so it wasn’t my place to try to stop it. I missed how something that could be parodied as an “effective altruist castle” would become a symbol of EA hypocrisy and self-servingness, causing reputational harm to many people and organizations who had nothing to do with the decision or the building.”
I also liked the admission on slow movement on lead exposure. I had wondered why I hadn’t been hearing more on that front given the huge opportunities there and the potential for something like the equivalent of a disease “elimination” with a huge effect on future generations. From what I’ve seen, my instinct is that it had potential to perhaps be a more clear/urgent/cost-effective focus than other Open Phil areas like air quality.
All the best for this year!