It’s common practice in philanthropy because the traditional idea is “donors should decide to help however they want with their resources”. In contrast, in EA there’s an alternative model of evaluating orgs and donating to effective ones.
I would understand why e.g. CEA would have a governance structure that formally includes community input or a community ombudsman on the board. But why should it have an OpenPhil program officer?
I disagree with “effective” as an abstract property of an org. To me, if I think an org is effective and worth supporting/giving a large grant to, I want to support it in being MORE effective and to help it improve. Being on the board is plausibly a good way to do that (assuming that I have good judgment and perspective, obviously, which I hope senior grantmakers do!). There are obvious critiques of this, but I think that the core idea has substance and isn’t just being self serving
Yeah, I’ve thought further of my argument here and I don’t think it’s very strong, especially if you’re giving millions to something that doesn’t easily scale.
Edit: well, to be honest I really am unsure, but still tend to think the option of capture by the big donor is the worse alternative here, and donors like this should not sit on the board.
It’s common practice in philanthropy because the traditional idea is “donors should decide to help however they want with their resources”. In contrast, in EA there’s an alternative model of evaluating orgs and donating to effective ones.
I would understand why e.g. CEA would have a governance structure that formally includes community input or a community ombudsman on the board. But why should it have an OpenPhil program officer?
I disagree with “effective” as an abstract property of an org. To me, if I think an org is effective and worth supporting/giving a large grant to, I want to support it in being MORE effective and to help it improve. Being on the board is plausibly a good way to do that (assuming that I have good judgment and perspective, obviously, which I hope senior grantmakers do!). There are obvious critiques of this, but I think that the core idea has substance and isn’t just being self serving
Yeah, I’ve thought further of my argument here and I don’t think it’s very strong, especially if you’re giving millions to something that doesn’t easily scale.
Edit: well, to be honest I really am unsure, but still tend to think the option of capture by the big donor is the worse alternative here, and donors like this should not sit on the board.