Thanks for the post! I wonder whether it would also be good to have public versions of the applications (sensible information could be redacted), as Manifund does, which would be even less costly than having external reviewers.
1Day Sooner made our last proposal to OP public (with some minor redactions), but I do think for a lot of groups (particularly those doing advocacy) there could be a significant tradeoff between candor/​clarity and transparency, so it’s not a costless choice. I do tend to think OP making grant requests public as a default would probably be good (I think information often has a lot of positive externalities that can be hard to observe or predict). But doing it in some cases and not others might draw attention/​criticism to the more controversial areas, and it would create more work for OP and for applicants.
Thanks for the post! I wonder whether it would also be good to have public versions of the applications (sensible information could be redacted), as Manifund does, which would be even less costly than having external reviewers.
1Day Sooner made our last proposal to OP public (with some minor redactions), but I do think for a lot of groups (particularly those doing advocacy) there could be a significant tradeoff between candor/​clarity and transparency, so it’s not a costless choice. I do tend to think OP making grant requests public as a default would probably be good (I think information often has a lot of positive externalities that can be hard to observe or predict). But doing it in some cases and not others might draw attention/​criticism to the more controversial areas, and it would create more work for OP and for applicants.