We’re probably going to be setting up channels where funders can discuss applicants. This way if there are concerns about net negativity, other funders considering it can see that. This might even lead to less unilateralist curse because if lots of funders think that the idea is net negative, others will be able to see that, instead of the status quo, where it’s hard to know what other funders think of an application.
I’m not convinced this is a very satisfactory mechanism. It can be very hard to share negative feedback, especially as this is often very personal (e.g. the project idea is good but the applicant is untrustworthy, or they would mess it up very badly and spoil the water for another attempt, etc.) and with a sufficiently large pool of funders viewing your written evaluation the risk that the applicant is informed could become unacceptably high.
The local incentives people face often discourage publicly giving negative feedback that may cause an applicant to not get funding. (“I would gain nothing from giving negative feedback, and that person might hate me.”)
I’m not convinced this is a very satisfactory mechanism. It can be very hard to share negative feedback, especially as this is often very personal (e.g. the project idea is good but the applicant is untrustworthy, or they would mess it up very badly and spoil the water for another attempt, etc.) and with a sufficiently large pool of funders viewing your written evaluation the risk that the applicant is informed could become unacceptably high.
Why is it hard to share negative feedback? Would it be bad in expectation if the applicant is informed?
With more funders, it could be closer to anonymous. Even some internal discussion could be made anonymous if there are concerns about leaks.
The local incentives people face often discourage publicly giving negative feedback that may cause an applicant to not get funding. (“I would gain nothing from giving negative feedback, and that person might hate me.”)