File descriptions:

justification.txt

variables.csv: Table of project IDs, names, and variables. Currently just the messy 'R1' variables from original spreadsheet.

value_functions.py: file of potential value functions. Currently just contains greens_equally(), which only cares about the 'R1_Group' variable, and assigns value 1 to each 'green' project.

allocate.py: Calls a value function from value_functions and splits the £3m according to the scores.

allocation.csv: Table of the money allocated to each project.

Value Statement

As a group we have a number of things that we think are important: Technology as a tool for change: Perhaps unsurprisingly, we seem to value technology as a key area for change. This covers how to enable technological progress, how to change the impact of technology on our social processes (elections, online extremism etc) and the social construction of technology. Open Knowledge: We value innovation and scientific progress so open knowledge sharing and transparency appear to be important. Global perspectives: For many of our group there is a recognition that our grant needs to impact on a global scale. We need to consider challenges such as the climate crisis, the impact of capitalism on indigenous communities and the lack of fairness at a global level. Reducing the scale of inequality: Most of the group also referenced the need to understand how changes to capitalism are impacting unfairly on different groups. There were references to areas such as workers rights.

There are also a number of approaches that we value: Empowerment: Some valued empowerment over paternalism, inclusive not extractive. There was also the desire to empower more people who have skills to do good. Systems approaches: In all our answers there was a desire for systems level interventions. Evidence-based interventions: We also value effectiveness and evidence based interventions. Though there may be some tension between how far different people within the group believe things can be quantified.

There are also a number of criteria that matter to us in making decisions about the grant: Giving money to projects that couldn’t otherwise access it: There was a sense that funding smaller projects at an early stage will give us more impact. This could also be led by a consideration of current gaps in the grants market. This also links to our group's appetite to risk. Organisational makeup of the project team: There was an appreciation of the need for us to consider the team and people behind each project, their commitment and trust in their ability to deliver. Also there was a need for the teams running the projects to be inclusive. Ecosystem effects: There are some thoughts around funding groups of projects or considering their interdependence. Level of impact: There needs to be a consideration about the level and scale of impact: direct Vs indirect, long Vs short term.

Something we agree we need to be aware of: Being aware of our own bias: There was a suggestion that we need to be aware of our own biases throughout this process.