TESTING

Top line: this represents one of the biggest philanthropic commitments in history, at a time when that feels particularly needed, so it should definitely be welcomed.
2. Gates's stated desire to "solve" the problems he is concerned with might strike some as unrealistic (or even slightly hubristic), but at a time when optimism and ambition feel like they have been in fairly short supply in philanthropy, can you also see it as a welcome bit of boldness?
3. Is this more evidence that norms in foundation philanthropy are shifting - from longer-term time horizons (or perpetuity) being seen as a default, to these being ideas that need to be scrutinised & challenged?
4. This isn't unprecedented in a historical sense: there have long been donors who argued strongly in favour of giving while living (e.g. Julius Rosenwald, Charles Garland, George Eastman, Edith Stern) and made their foundations time-limited as a consequence, but they've tended to be in a small minority (and in many cases slightly forgotten, because the foundations that bear their names no longer exist).
5. Andrew Carnegie really does continue to be a big influence on philanthropy, doesn't he?
6. Bill Gates also cites Chuck Feeney as a big influence on his thinking about giving while living, but I also wonder whether the more recent example of Mackenzie Scott (and, indeed, Melinda French Gates) has had any impact? They both seem to be challenging the idea that "it is hard to give away money quickly" and I wonder if that has played any part in Gates questioning whether his own giving could be done faster?
7. Can the timing of this announcement can be read in part as a comment on the particular urgency of the current moment? I know Gates has framed it in terms of personal milestones (his 70th birthday etc), but the reality is that this is a decision he could have made at any time so I wonder if it the actions of the Trump administration and the impact they have had on civil society have been the deciding factor?
8. In light of ongoing criticisms that the Giving Pledge has failed to hold people accountable for their pledges, Gates seems to be setting a strong example by putting his money where his mouth is and spending down quicker. I wonder if this might inspire other signatories to do something similar?
9. Is there any risk that the increased pace of Gates' giving could exacerbate concerns about the distorting effect that his philanthropy can have on public spending and policy decisions in some of the countries where the foundation operates? (Even when it is well-intentioned and well directed, the sheer scale of this kind of giving means that this is always a potential risk, and that seems likely to be even more the case now).