« Speak Well of The Rich, or Else | Main | Planned Giving as Package Selling: How to Get Beyond That »

November 03, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Thanks for the thoughts, Phil.

I took a look at the KINS Network. Obviously our project and this one share different priorities. Aside from that, it's hard for me to judge a network by its structure or theory. It seems like it has to be judged by its activity. Is there a lot of dialogue and interaction going on via the KINS Network?

One comment I have about networking with other donors, which will be somewhat predictable, is that I believe more of the interaction should *start* in writing rather than in person. The reason is that, at least for the causes we're doing, there are just SO MANY questions and so much to absorb. It would seem silly to sit down with Habermas never having read a thing by him, and hoping to learn all about his theory of communicative action via conversation - not efficient or respectful - and I'd rather go through his work, understand it, form my own thoughts about it, and then have a conversation with him that could truly go beyond what's written. Analogously, the first thing I'd like to see from funders is publicly publishing their information, analysis, and understanding. That would make it easy for me to dive in, read it all, and then start forming relationships with those whose work is most valuable and interesting to me.

(And that's exactly what we're trying to do via GiveWell - share what we find in writing so we can start a conversation with real substance.)


That makes a lot of sense, nice comment. I'm wondering about how public or private these exchanges would be. It's something we have discussed in the past. Online tools can fill the role, if they have levels of privacy and privacy controls appropriate to the context of the discussion.


Gerry - my vote is that they be totally public. The purpose of a charity is to make the world a better place, not to make or raise money; whatever information is relevant should be public.

That said, once you put all your knowledge, decisions, and reasoning on the web, controlling permissions is trivial. Our stuff is restricted right now because we want our grant applicants to be able to look at it before the public does. When the time comes, changing access is a matter of flipping a switch. I can't see why privacy concerns would make anyone hesitate to record what they have, in a form such that outsiders (whether the general public, or by invitation only) can understand it.


Thanks, Holden, it would be informative if someone like Albert Ruesga or Joel Orosz who work in the grantmaking were to comment here on the state of collaboration among funders. Where and how do they communicate? Are their archives of what has been done and what has worked? How and where are best practices shared? How does one get included in this idea sharing in specific issue areas?

The comments to this entry are closed.


Wealth Bondage Premium Content

  • Castle by the Sea
    Provided as a professional courtesy at no extra charge to those with net worth of $25 million or more and/or family income of $500,000 a year or more, and to their Serving Professionals of all genders.