My (guessing) model is that through his work for OpenPhil Bollard often has additional grants he wants to make, while Beckstead can more often convince OpenPhil to make his intended grants and so is rarely in this position. Hence Bollard has more use for supplementary funding.
I would agree, there’s more scope beyond how the Open Philanthropy Welfare Fund presently operates so EA Funds has more potential utility there, but my own view is that the full range of possibilites aren’t presently explored /​ considered because of time constraints alongside the low value of some disbursements alongside potentially having to spend more time justifying fairly unconventional grants.
In some ways i think it is the unconventional /​ marginal organisations which need more consideration as bringing potential value to the table over what is generally considered. Particularly in the way that a narrow funding focus could develop associations with particular organisations /​ ideas and so there could be issues of gravitating toward type.
I’m not sure what the solution is, perhaps another project worker at the Open Philanthropy Welfare Fund, maybe a small set of volunteers could be managed /​ empowered to work on building cases. It’s difficult to know, but i do sympathise with the time constraints.
Yeah, this was a good step but i think probably not enough, particularly in relation to having two former HSUS staff members which is useful for implementing the current programme but less so when considering or assessing the value of different areas of the animal movement.
I don’t know about others, but since Nick’s response, the issue isn’t with how Nick has run the two EA Funds, but for several months donors and the community were given an impression the funds would be run a different way, and there wasn’t much communication on this subject. Donors gave to the EA Community and Long-Term Future Funds under the impression the fund manager would be looking for those additional granting opportunities, as was the case with Lewis’ management of the Animal Welfare Fund.
My (guessing) model is that through his work for OpenPhil Bollard often has additional grants he wants to make, while Beckstead can more often convince OpenPhil to make his intended grants and so is rarely in this position. Hence Bollard has more use for supplementary funding.
I would agree, there’s more scope beyond how the Open Philanthropy Welfare Fund presently operates so EA Funds has more potential utility there, but my own view is that the full range of possibilites aren’t presently explored /​ considered because of time constraints alongside the low value of some disbursements alongside potentially having to spend more time justifying fairly unconventional grants.
In some ways i think it is the unconventional /​ marginal organisations which need more consideration as bringing potential value to the table over what is generally considered. Particularly in the way that a narrow funding focus could develop associations with particular organisations /​ ideas and so there could be issues of gravitating toward type.
I’m not sure what the solution is, perhaps another project worker at the Open Philanthropy Welfare Fund, maybe a small set of volunteers could be managed /​ empowered to work on building cases. It’s difficult to know, but i do sympathise with the time constraints.
Open Phil hired a Senior Associate, Farm Animal Welfare in March 2018.
https://​​www.openphilanthropy.org/​​about/​​team/​​amanda-hungerford
Yeah, this was a good step but i think probably not enough, particularly in relation to having two former HSUS staff members which is useful for implementing the current programme but less so when considering or assessing the value of different areas of the animal movement.
I don’t know about others, but since Nick’s response, the issue isn’t with how Nick has run the two EA Funds, but for several months donors and the community were given an impression the funds would be run a different way, and there wasn’t much communication on this subject. Donors gave to the EA Community and Long-Term Future Funds under the impression the fund manager would be looking for those additional granting opportunities, as was the case with Lewis’ management of the Animal Welfare Fund.