Hi Amy, I think it’s hard to justify a policy of never discussing someone’s application publicly even when they agree to it and it’s in the public interest. This is completely different from protecting people’s privacy.
If you read Amy’s reply carefully, it sounds like she told Constance some of the reasons for rejection in private and then Constance didn’t summarize those reasons (accurately, or at all?) in her post. If so, it’s understandable why Amy isn’t sure whether Constance would be okay having them shared (because if she was okay, she’d have already shared them?). See this part of Amy’s reply:
I did explain to Constance why she was initially rejected as one of the things we discussed on an hour-long call. [...] I don’t think this post reflects what I told Constance, perhaps because she disagrees with us. So, I want to stick to the policy for now.
FWIW, based on everything Constance writes, I think she seems like a good fit for EAG to me and, more importantly, can be extremely proud of her altruism and accomplishments (and doesn’t need validation from other EAs for that).
I’m just saying that on the particular topic of sharing reasons for the initial rejections, it seems like Amy gave an argument that’s more specific than “we never discuss reasons, ever, not even when the person herself is okay with public discussion.” And you seem to have missed that in your reply or assumed an uncharitable interpretation.
But if Constance explicitly said she wants to have this conversation more publicly, would you comment publicly? Or could you comment in a private message to her, and endorse her sharing the message if she chose to?
If you read Amy’s reply carefully, it sounds like she told Constance some of the reasons for rejection in private and then Constance didn’t summarize those reasons (accurately, or at all?) in her post. If so, it’s understandable why Amy isn’t sure whether Constance would be okay having them shared (because if she was okay, she’d have already shared them?). See this part of Amy’s reply:
FWIW, based on everything Constance writes, I think she seems like a good fit for EAG to me and, more importantly, can be extremely proud of her altruism and accomplishments (and doesn’t need validation from other EAs for that).
I’m just saying that on the particular topic of sharing reasons for the initial rejections, it seems like Amy gave an argument that’s more specific than “we never discuss reasons, ever, not even when the person herself is okay with public discussion.” And you seem to have missed that in your reply or assumed an uncharitable interpretation.
Amy’s comment was in response to Zach asking:
And I was refering to that hypothetical.