We are excited to announce a new co-funding partnership with Kaitlyn Trigger and her fiancé Mike Krieger (co-founder of Instagram)...supporting the Open Philanthropy Project’s work...
...Kaitlyn and Mike have made a financial commitment of $750,000 over the next two years...
...We have reserved a desk in the office for Kaitlyn, and she expects to spend around two days a week there. While she also will work on her own projects, she will join team meetings…be included in internal correspondence around our process, and do some work…Our goal is to give her an inside look at the Open Philanthropy Project process and generally be a resource to her in learning about how to give as effectively as possible...
...To date, we haven’t actively sought partnerships along these lines. Kaitlyn and Mike suggested it…
My scorecard:
GiveWell Loses
Small amount of productivity (Teaching Kaitlyn)
Large amount of credibility (Donors influenced priorities)
GiveWell Gains
$750,000
Higher expected donations from Krieger and his network of wealthy friends
What do you think of the partnership? I am disappointed, but open to changing my mind.
GiveWell already has donors that might influence priorities.
Do you have evidence that donors, other than the starting core, have influenced priorities? If so, I would be interested.
I don’t think having donors means losing credibility.
I meant to say “Donors influenced priorities”. I’ll edit to clear up the confusion. It’s important, to me at least, that GiveWell’s research is as unbiased as possible.
No, but why do you think that those donors is more likely to influence priorities?
This looks like influence to me...
To date, we haven’t actively sought partnerships along these lines. Kaitlyn and Mike suggested it...
Next,
I don’t see conflicts of interests in this case.
Really? For example, if GiveWell determined that the Open Philanthropy Project were a waste of resources, do you think they would simply say, “Well Mr. Krieger, you shouldn’t give us that money after all.”
This looks like influence to me…
To date, we haven’t actively sought partnerships along these lines. Kaitlyn and Mike suggested it...
I would think that GiveWell talks with his donors and takes idea that it considers good on board. I don’t see a problem with doing things that other people suggest.
For example, if GiveWell determined that the Open Philanthropy Project were a waste of resources, do you think they would simply say, “Well Mr. Krieger, you shouldn’t give us that money after all.”
Do you object in principle to the idea of taking project specific outside funding?
That like saying a researcher who applies to some grant is biased because he has to please the person who give out the grant.
GiveWell partners with co-founder of Instagram and his fiancée.
http://blog.givewell.org/2015/04/23/co-funding-partnership-with-kaitlyn-trigger-and-mike-krieger/
My scorecard:
GiveWell Loses
Small amount of productivity (Teaching Kaitlyn)
Large amount of credibility (Donors influenced priorities)
GiveWell Gains
$750,000
Higher expected donations from Krieger and his network of wealthy friends
What do you think of the partnership? I am disappointed, but open to changing my mind.
GiveWell already has donors that might influence priorities. I don’t think having donors means losing credibility.
Do you have evidence that donors, other than the starting core, have influenced priorities? If so, I would be interested.
I meant to say “Donors influenced priorities”. I’ll edit to clear up the confusion. It’s important, to me at least, that GiveWell’s research is as unbiased as possible.
No, but why do you think that those donors is more likely to influence priorities?
“Unbiased” is a quite complicated word what do you mean with it? I don’t see conflicts of interests in this case.
This looks like influence to me...
Next,
Really? For example, if GiveWell determined that the Open Philanthropy Project were a waste of resources, do you think they would simply say, “Well Mr. Krieger, you shouldn’t give us that money after all.”
I would think that GiveWell talks with his donors and takes idea that it considers good on board. I don’t see a problem with doing things that other people suggest.
Do you object in principle to the idea of taking project specific outside funding?
That like saying a researcher who applies to some grant is biased because he has to please the person who give out the grant.