Comments on: An open letter to crybabies http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/ Exploring how to get real change for your dollar. Thu, 17 May 2012 06:21:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: Holden http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-8776 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:34:48 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-8776 Courtney - if you'd really like to convince me to go back to the for-profit sector, you should provide some explanation and information. It's possible that I'm missing something, but "Trust me - I'm an expert, you're not, I say X, and I expect you to act on that without any further evidence or explanation" is not an argument I accept, especially when it comes from someone that I have no independent reason to trust. Courtney - if you’d really like to convince me to go back to the for-profit sector, you should provide some explanation and information.

It’s possible that I’m missing something, but “Trust me - I’m an expert, you’re not, I say X, and I expect you to act on that without any further evidence or explanation” is not an argument I accept, especially when it comes from someone that I have no independent reason to trust.

]]> by: courtney http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-8774 Sat, 23 Jun 2007 18:33:32 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-8774 your ignorance of the non-profit sector and your arrogant sense of self sacrifice will prevent you from every truly doing "good." stick to what you're good at, and go back to your high paying job in the private sector. you clearly are too far removed from understanding what it means to make a penny stretch five ways, as is necessary to keep a non-profit afloat, and are in no position to pass judgment on those who do. your ignorance of the non-profit sector and your arrogant sense of self sacrifice will prevent you from every truly doing “good.”

stick to what you’re good at, and go back to your high paying job in the private sector. you clearly are too far removed from understanding what it means to make a penny stretch five ways, as is necessary to keep a non-profit afloat, and are in no position to pass judgment on those who do.

]]> by: baugh http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-7681 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:13:54 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-7681 I work with foundations and non-profits alike and one thing is common...they all want to reach people and raise money. We use www.foryourcause.com to reach the millions of people to shop online and donate. Sign up, pick your cause (or sign up your own cause) all for free and shop. Buy products at the same prices and donate to those causes. Win, Win for everyone and you tap the masses who unfortunately dont have the time in their eyes to make any difference. Everyone is so busy with their own lives that the regular person can do as they normally would and feel like they are making a difference. Try the site, 1000 people buying 1000 dollars in products over one year (this is a small amount) and raise between 30,00 and 100,00 dollars. Here is the press release for this company: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-29-2007/0004597511&EDATE= I work with foundations and non-profits alike and one thing is common…they all want to reach people and raise money. We use www.foryourcause.com to reach the millions of people to shop online and donate. Sign up, pick your cause (or sign up your own cause) all for free and shop. Buy products at the same prices and donate to those causes. Win, Win for everyone and you tap the masses who unfortunately dont have the time in their eyes to make any difference. Everyone is so busy with their own lives that the regular person can do as they normally would and feel like they are making a difference. Try the site, 1000 people buying 1000 dollars in products over one year (this is a small amount) and raise between 30,00 and 100,00 dollars. Here is the press release for this company:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-29-2007/0004597511&EDATE=

]]> by: Holden http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-7516 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 06:33:44 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-7516 We may be in agreement. I think foundations should publish criticisms on their websites, and that their websites should allow comments on every page. I don't really care whether foundations also include criticisms in their mailout materials. If I can get it on the web (accompanied by comments from the criticized, and anyone else who cares to contribute), I'm happy. If I can't get it anywhere, I ask why. We may be in agreement. I think foundations should publish criticisms on their websites, and that their websites should allow comments on every page.

I don’t really care whether foundations also include criticisms in their mailout materials. If I can get it on the web (accompanied by comments from the criticized, and anyone else who cares to contribute), I’m happy. If I can’t get it anywhere, I ask why.

]]> by: Trevor Meier http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-7514 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 06:26:53 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-7514 The problem with making the criticism public is that foundations have a lot more power than non-profits seeking funding. The weight of the words of a foundation are difficult to retract, and difficult to interact with from the perspective of the criticised. There doesn't exist a forum in which foundations and non-profits can publicly dialogue in a fair and open manner, and where the non-profit can tell their side of the story. I'm an advocate of transparency, and also of open and fair dialogue. So a situation I would support is, for example, Mark Petersen inviting a non-profit, whose proposal was rejected for one reason or another, discussing it on equal terms in a public, online venue like a blog or forum. I would not support foundations publishing lists & reasons for rejected non-profits in their mail-out publications, because it becomes an uneven power structure of transparency on one side, and complete information blackout on the other (because the non-profit has no opportunity to respond). The problem with making the criticism public is that foundations have a lot more power than non-profits seeking funding. The weight of the words of a foundation are difficult to retract, and difficult to interact with from the perspective of the criticised. There doesn’t exist a forum in which foundations and non-profits can publicly dialogue in a fair and open manner, and where the non-profit can tell their side of the story.

I’m an advocate of transparency, and also of open and fair dialogue. So a situation I would support is, for example, Mark Petersen inviting a non-profit, whose proposal was rejected for one reason or another, discussing it on equal terms in a public, online venue like a blog or forum. I would not support foundations publishing lists & reasons for rejected non-profits in their mail-out publications, because it becomes an uneven power structure of transparency on one side, and complete information blackout on the other (because the non-profit has no opportunity to respond).

]]> by: Gillian http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-7449 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:29:57 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-7449 NOT RELATED TO THIS POST, BUT... In building an assessment of the quality of philanthropy, have you looked at the measures used by the Commitment to Development Index? How might the issues they highlight apply to individual philanthropy projects? Blogged here... http://blogs.cgdev.org/globaldevelopment/2007/06/british_conservatives_invoke_c.php And here is Nancy Birdsall's paper about reform of the aid business -- its practices, processes, procedures and politics of aid. http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/2737/ NOT RELATED TO THIS POST, BUT…

In building an assessment of the quality of philanthropy, have you looked at the measures used by the Commitment to Development Index? How might the issues they highlight apply to individual philanthropy projects?

Blogged here…

http://blogs.cgdev.org/globaldevelopment/2007/06/british_conservatives_invoke_c.php

And here is Nancy Birdsall’s paper about reform of the aid business — its practices, processes, procedures and politics of aid.

http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/2737/

]]> by: Holden http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-7235 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 02:12:24 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-7235 You're right that there's more to the question of whether it should be public - I was responding largely to Mark's "kicking someone when they're down" language (as well as to the unrelated discussion on Tactical Philanthropy). I will probably write about this question more in depth at some point, but briefly, I think the criticism should be public. I think the whole picture should be public. Foundations should publish exactly what they think of everyone, and everyone who disagrees should argue back. I think that balance is much easier to achieve when everyone pushes for their side than when the controller of information tries to be neutral. You’re right that there’s more to the question of whether it should be public - I was responding largely to Mark’s “kicking someone when they’re down” language (as well as to the unrelated discussion on Tactical Philanthropy).

I will probably write about this question more in depth at some point, but briefly, I think the criticism should be public. I think the whole picture should be public. Foundations should publish exactly what they think of everyone, and everyone who disagrees should argue back. I think that balance is much easier to achieve when everyone pushes for their side than when the controller of information tries to be neutral.

]]> by: Trevor Meier http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-7232 Wed, 06 Jun 2007 01:58:38 +0000 http://blog.givewell.org/2007/06/05/an-open-letter-to-crybabies/#comment-7232 I can see your point... I think the point of our discussion over on Mark's blog was whether that feedback should be in the public domain or not. Sometimes it's better to give constructive criticism behind closed doors when there isn't repor with a public who may not see the whole picture when exposed to negative feedback about a non-profit... I think exposing case-scenarios to the public while 'protecting the innocent' can be a good balance of transparency and privacy for non-profits who still are needing to improve. I can see your point… I think the point of our discussion over on Mark’s blog was whether that feedback should be in the public domain or not. Sometimes it’s better to give constructive criticism behind closed doors when there isn’t repor with a public who may not see the whole picture when exposed to negative feedback about a non-profit…

I think exposing case-scenarios to the public while ‘protecting the innocent’ can be a good balance of transparency and privacy for non-profits who still are needing to improve.

]]>