Considerations against s-process philanthropy

I wrote this to help think through considerations. Now I decided to publish it. habryka left some comments on the google doc, some of which I copied here.One way to do philanthropy:Foundation style. Start/pick a foundation or donation-advising-org. Give it money and high-level direction but defer to it on details. Maintain some insight into its grants and reasoning, so that if you have conviction that it's messing up, you can tell it to start/stop doing certain things.Another way to do philanthropy:S-process style. Pick a bunch of recommenders. Have each recommender describe what they would do with every possible budget, then compete to convince you. Allocate money to the most compelling recommenders' recommendations. Repeat regularly.I don't know which is better. I want to think through considerations. Here's some potential advantages of foundation style (some of which could be attained by sophisticated versions of s-process style):[1]Flexibility. You can move fast. You can also make weird pledges rather than just making grants.Ability to do private/sensitive stuff. Fund stuff in private; reason in private.Steering. You can steer grantees much better: you can offer them $X conditional on them promising to do or not do certain things. (S-process recommenders don't have good tools for steering, at most just "purpose-restricted funding" or "conveying that they wish for the org to do certain things."Division of labor. For each org, someone is responsible for keeping track of it and maybe advising it or explaining how the funder is orienting to it. Each recommender doesn't have to evaluate each org they might like.(Maybe other upsides downstream of bureaucracy. Also many downsides.)Institutional knowledge. Like, SFF has no institutional knowledge, and maybe you can do slightly better but not as well as CG.habryka says "I think you can do much better than CG at institutional knowledge via this process, though it's pretty unproven."Oh also lots of important things related