This seems pretty hard to put into practice. Letās say TLA gets most of itās funding from OP. TLA is considering hiring someone: should they ask āare you romantically involved with any of these 80 peopleā as part of their decision to hire, and weigh employing this particular person against the difficulty of making up the funding shortfall? Or after hiring someone should TLA then ask the question, and just accept losing most of their funding if the answer is yes? Should OP be doing the same? (āAre you romantically involved with any of these ~10,000 people at these organizations we have an ongoing relationship with?ā)
The particular situation youāre talking about is with a relatively senior person at OP, but I think not incredibly so? Theyāre one of 27 /ā80 people who either have āseniorā in their title or are co-CEO/āPresident. The person at the grantee org looks to be much more senior, probably the #2 or #3 person at the org. A version of your proposal that only included C-level people at the grantee org and people working on the relevant area (or people who directly or indirectly supervise people who do) at the granting org would make a lot more sense, though Iām not sure itās a good idea.
(I do think you should have COI policies, but recusal at the granting organization is the standard way to do it outside EA, and I think is pretty reasonable for EA as well.)
Thanks Jeff youāve convinced me that a zero relationship policy woyldnt work. I think I didnāt grasp the scale of these orgs and just how unrealistic this might be to avoid romantic entanglement at all levels.
I think something asking the lines of your steelmanning me here might ensure an extremely low chance of relationship bias affecting grants.
āA version of your proposal that only included C-level people at the grantee org and people working on the relevant area (or people who directly or indirectly supervise people who do) at the granting org would make a lot more sense, though Iām not sure itās a good idea.ā
I know other orgs operate through Recusal at the granting org, but romantic bias can still get legs in the donors door, and people may well still struggle to vote against someoneās partner out of loyalty. Recusal helps and Iām sure itās happening already, but it doesnāt seem good enough in some situations
This seems pretty hard to put into practice. Letās say TLA gets most of itās funding from OP. TLA is considering hiring someone: should they ask āare you romantically involved with any of these 80 peopleā as part of their decision to hire, and weigh employing this particular person against the difficulty of making up the funding shortfall? Or after hiring someone should TLA then ask the question, and just accept losing most of their funding if the answer is yes? Should OP be doing the same? (āAre you romantically involved with any of these ~10,000 people at these organizations we have an ongoing relationship with?ā)
The particular situation youāre talking about is with a relatively senior person at OP, but I think not incredibly so? Theyāre one of 27 /ā80 people who either have āseniorā in their title or are co-CEO/āPresident. The person at the grantee org looks to be much more senior, probably the #2 or #3 person at the org. A version of your proposal that only included C-level people at the grantee org and people working on the relevant area (or people who directly or indirectly supervise people who do) at the granting org would make a lot more sense, though Iām not sure itās a good idea.
(I do think you should have COI policies, but recusal at the granting organization is the standard way to do it outside EA, and I think is pretty reasonable for EA as well.)
Thanks Jeff youāve convinced me that a zero relationship policy woyldnt work. I think I didnāt grasp the scale of these orgs and just how unrealistic this might be to avoid romantic entanglement at all levels.
I think something asking the lines of your steelmanning me here might ensure an extremely low chance of relationship bias affecting grants.
āA version of your proposal that only included C-level people at the grantee org and people working on the relevant area (or people who directly or indirectly supervise people who do) at the granting org would make a lot more sense, though Iām not sure itās a good idea.ā
I know other orgs operate through Recusal at the granting org, but romantic bias can still get legs in the donors door, and people may well still struggle to vote against someoneās partner out of loyalty. Recusal helps and Iām sure itās happening already, but it doesnāt seem good enough in some situations
Thanks for the engagement.