Yeah, good point that these grants do seem to all fit that one-line description.
That said, I think that probably most or all grants from all 4 EA Funds would fit that descriptionāI think that that one-line description should probably be changed to make it clearer whatās distinctive about the Infrastructure Fund. (I acknowledge Iāve now switched from kind-of disagreeing with you to kind-of disagreeing with that part of how the EAIF present themselves.)
I think the rest of the āFund Scopeā section helps clarify the distinctive scope:
While the other three Funds support direct work on various causes, this Fund supports work that could multiply the impact of direct work, including projects that provide intellectual infrastructure for the effective altruism community, run events, disseminate information, or fundraise for effective charities. This will be achieved by supporting projects that:
Directly increase the number of people who are exposed to principles of effective altruism, or develop, refine or present such principles
Support the recruitment of talented people who can use their skills to make progress on important problems
Aim to build a global community of people who use principles of effective altruism as a core part of their decision-making process when deciding how they can have a positive impact on the world
Conduct research into prioritizing between or within different cause areas
Raise funds or otherwise support other highly-effective projects
Improve community health by promoting healthy norms for interaction and discourse, or assist in resolving grievances
Re-reading that, I now think Giving Green clearly does fit under EAIFās scope (āRaise funds or otherwise support other highly-effective projectsā). And it seems a bitclearer why the CLTR and Jakob Lohmar grants might fit, since I think they partly target the 1st, 3rd, and 4th of those things.
Though it still does seem to me like those two grants are probably better fits for LTFF.
And I also think āConduct research into prioritizing [...] within different cause areasā seems like a better fit for the relevant cause area. E.g., research about TAI timelines or the number of shrimp there are in the world should pretty clearly be under the scope of the LTFF and AWF, respectively, rather than EAIF. (So thatās another place where Iāve accidentally slipped into providing feedback on that fund page rather than disagreeing with you specifically.)
Though it still does seem to me like those two grants are probably better fits for LTFF.
But this line is what I am disagreeing with. Iām saying thereās a binary of āwithin scopeā or not, and then otherwise itās up to the fund to fund what they think is best according to their judgment about EA Infrastructure or the Long-Term Future or whatever. Do you think that the EAIF should be able to tell the LTFF to fund a project because the EAIF thinks itās worthwhile for EA Infrastructure, instead of using the EAIFās money? Alternatively, if the EAIF thinks something is worth money for EA Infrastructure reasons, if the grant is probably more naturally under the scope of āLong-Term Futureā, do you think they shouldnāt fund the grantee even if LTFF isnāt going to either?
Ah, this is a good point, and I think I understand where youāre coming from better now. Your first comment made me think you were contesting the idea that the funds should each have a āscopeā at all. But now I see itās just that you think the scopes will sometimes overlap, and that in those cases the grant should be able to be evaluated and funded by any fund itās within-scope for, without consideration of which fund itās more centrally within scope for. Right?
I think that sounds right to me, and I think that that argument + re-reading that āFund Scopeā section have together made it so that I think that EAIF granting to CLTR and Jakob Lohmar just actually makes sense. I.e., I think Iāve now changed my mind and become less confused about those decisions.
Though I still think it would probably make sense for Fund A to refer an application to Fund B if the project seems more centrally in-scope for Fund B, and let Fund B evaluate it first. Then if Fund B declines, Fund A could do their own evaluation and (if they want) fund the project, though perhaps somewhat updating negatively based on the info that Fund B declined funding. (Maybe this is roughly how it already works. And also I havenāt thought about this until writing this comment, so maybe there are strong arguments against this approach.)
(Again, I feel I should state explicitlyāto avoid anyone taking this as criticism of CLTR or Jakobāthat the issue was never that I thought CLTR or Jakob just shouldnāt get funding; it was just about clarity over what the EAIF would do.)
Though I still think it would probably make sense for Fund A to refer an application to Fund B if the project seems more centrally in-scope for Fund B, and let Fund B evaluate it first.
In theory, I agree. In practice, this shuffling around of grants costs some time (both in terms of fund manager work time, and in terms of calendar time grantseekers spend waiting for a decision), and I prefer spending that time making a larger number of good grants rather than on minor allocation improvements.
(That seems reasonableāIād have to have a clearer sense of relevant time costs etc. to form a better independent impression, but that general argument + the info that you believe this would overall not be worthwhile is sufficient to update me to that view.)
And btw, I think if there are particular grants that seem not in scope from a fund, is seems totally reasonable to ask them for their reasoning and update pos/āneg on them if the reasoning does/ādoesnāt check out. And itās also generally good to question the reasoning of a grant that doesnāt make sense to you.
Yeah, good point that these grants do seem to all fit that one-line description.
That said, I think that probably most or all grants from all 4 EA Funds would fit that descriptionāI think that that one-line description should probably be changed to make it clearer whatās distinctive about the Infrastructure Fund. (I acknowledge Iāve now switched from kind-of disagreeing with you to kind-of disagreeing with that part of how the EAIF present themselves.)
I think the rest of the āFund Scopeā section helps clarify the distinctive scope:
Re-reading that, I now think Giving Green clearly does fit under EAIFās scope (āRaise funds or otherwise support other highly-effective projectsā). And it seems a bit clearer why the CLTR and Jakob Lohmar grants might fit, since I think they partly target the 1st, 3rd, and 4th of those things.
Though it still does seem to me like those two grants are probably better fits for LTFF.
And I also think āConduct research into prioritizing [...] within different cause areasā seems like a better fit for the relevant cause area. E.g., research about TAI timelines or the number of shrimp there are in the world should pretty clearly be under the scope of the LTFF and AWF, respectively, rather than EAIF. (So thatās another place where Iāve accidentally slipped into providing feedback on that fund page rather than disagreeing with you specifically.)
But this line is what I am disagreeing with. Iām saying thereās a binary of āwithin scopeā or not, and then otherwise itās up to the fund to fund what they think is best according to their judgment about EA Infrastructure or the Long-Term Future or whatever. Do you think that the EAIF should be able to tell the LTFF to fund a project because the EAIF thinks itās worthwhile for EA Infrastructure, instead of using the EAIFās money? Alternatively, if the EAIF thinks something is worth money for EA Infrastructure reasons, if the grant is probably more naturally under the scope of āLong-Term Futureā, do you think they shouldnāt fund the grantee even if LTFF isnāt going to either?
Ah, this is a good point, and I think I understand where youāre coming from better now. Your first comment made me think you were contesting the idea that the funds should each have a āscopeā at all. But now I see itās just that you think the scopes will sometimes overlap, and that in those cases the grant should be able to be evaluated and funded by any fund itās within-scope for, without consideration of which fund itās more centrally within scope for. Right?
I think that sounds right to me, and I think that that argument + re-reading that āFund Scopeā section have together made it so that I think that EAIF granting to CLTR and Jakob Lohmar just actually makes sense. I.e., I think Iāve now changed my mind and become less confused about those decisions.
Though I still think it would probably make sense for Fund A to refer an application to Fund B if the project seems more centrally in-scope for Fund B, and let Fund B evaluate it first. Then if Fund B declines, Fund A could do their own evaluation and (if they want) fund the project, though perhaps somewhat updating negatively based on the info that Fund B declined funding. (Maybe this is roughly how it already works. And also I havenāt thought about this until writing this comment, so maybe there are strong arguments against this approach.)
(Again, I feel I should state explicitlyāto avoid anyone taking this as criticism of CLTR or Jakobāthat the issue was never that I thought CLTR or Jakob just shouldnāt get funding; it was just about clarity over what the EAIF would do.)
In theory, I agree. In practice, this shuffling around of grants costs some time (both in terms of fund manager work time, and in terms of calendar time grantseekers spend waiting for a decision), and I prefer spending that time making a larger number of good grants rather than on minor allocation improvements.
(That seems reasonableāIād have to have a clearer sense of relevant time costs etc. to form a better independent impression, but that general argument + the info that you believe this would overall not be worthwhile is sufficient to update me to that view.)
Yeah, I think you understand me better now.
And btw, I think if there are particular grants that seem not in scope from a fund, is seems totally reasonable to ask them for their reasoning and update pos/āneg on them if the reasoning does/ādoesnāt check out. And itās also generally good to question the reasoning of a grant that doesnāt make sense to you.