Have you considered providing small pools of money to people who express potential interest in trying out grantmaking and who you have some reason to believe might be good at it? This could be people the fund managerās already know well, people who narrowly missed out on being appointed as full fund managers, or people who go through a short application process for these small pools specifically.
Potential benefits:
That could directly increase the diversity of perspectives represented in total in animal welfare funding decisions
Not just in the sense of āmore decision-makersā, but also āmore decision-makers who arenāt already playing a large role in other funding decisions (like Kieran and Lewis are)ā
That could help with people testing their fit for grantmaking, building their knowledge and skills and credentials for that, and perhaps being vetted by the Animal Welfare Fund for that (kind of like a work trial)
These peopleās decision-making would presumably be lower-quality on average than the current fund managerās decisions
Maybe the pools of funding would be so small as to not really warrant much time on grantmaking by these regranters, in which case the benefits would be more limited
Havenāt really thought much about doing it. But I think a lot of that is because I have not really come across anyone who has expressed this desire. It seems interesting, though, and could be worth exploring further.
If someone is curious about doing something like this, I think it is worth reaching out to either me or Jonas.
Have you considered providing small pools of money to people who express potential interest in trying out grantmaking and who you have some reason to believe might be good at it? This could be people the fund managerās already know well, people who narrowly missed out on being appointed as full fund managers, or people who go through a short application process for these small pools specifically.
Potential benefits:
That could directly increase the diversity of perspectives represented in total in animal welfare funding decisions
Not just in the sense of āmore decision-makersā, but also āmore decision-makers who arenāt already playing a large role in other funding decisions (like Kieran and Lewis are)ā
That could help with people testing their fit for grantmaking, building their knowledge and skills and credentials for that, and perhaps being vetted by the Animal Welfare Fund for that (kind of like a work trial)
(This is more important the more itās the case that the animal welfare space is vetting-constrained, and Iām not sure how strongly thatās the case; see Peter Hurford and my questions on that)
Possible downsides:
Takes time to implement
These peopleās decision-making would presumably be lower-quality on average than the current fund managerās decisions
Maybe the pools of funding would be so small as to not really warrant much time on grantmaking by these regranters, in which case the benefits would be more limited
That is interesting!
Havenāt really thought much about doing it. But I think a lot of that is because I have not really come across anyone who has expressed this desire. It seems interesting, though, and could be worth exploring further.
If someone is curious about doing something like this, I think it is worth reaching out to either me or Jonas.