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.
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.