Could he be allowed to sign an NDA to read Founder’s pledge’s work?
Unfortunately that wouldn’t help, because the part of the point of looking at FP’s work would be to evaluate it. Another person saying “I looked at some work privately and I agree/disagree with it” doesn’t seem helpful to people trying to evaluate StrongMinds.
GWWC would clarify what their threshold is for Top Charity
GWWC would explain how they decide what is a Trusted Evaluator and when their evaluations count to be a Top Charity (this decision process would include evaluators publishing their reasoning)
Unfortunately that wouldn’t help, because the part of the point of looking at FP’s work would be to evaluate it. Another person saying “I looked at some work privately and I agree/disagree with it” doesn’t seem helpful to people trying to evaluate StrongMinds.
I sense it would be better than the status quo.
What do you think would be better outcome here?
Ideally from my point of view:
GWWC would clarify what their threshold is for Top Charity
GWWC would explain how they decide what is a Trusted Evaluator and when their evaluations count to be a Top Charity (this decision process would include evaluators publishing their reasoning)
FP would publish their reasoning