Update on project on reforms at EA organizations

Thanks, Julia and Ozzie for your clarifications on this, as well as for editing the title of the post to reflect that this is more of a project than a focus group.

My basic reaction to your comments is: clearly it's good for “some people from across some different orgs... [to] spend time looking at these questions in a more dedicated way than will happen by default.” The more people thinking about how to reform EA organizations and institutions to prevent things like FTX, sexual misconduct, and the like from happening, the better. I also think the proposed reforms you allude to make sense.

As someone not involved in the various efforts aimed at identifying potential institutional reforms, though, a few things worry me about how these processes are being conducted.

1. It is hard for me to understand exactly what efforts are being undertaken to assess potential institutional reforms, who is involved in various efforts, how these efforts complement each other (or don't), the scope of such efforts, the rationale for having different groups of actors separately consider some of the same issues, and the processes by which various projects/investigations are being conducted. My basic understanding is that there are: a) external investigations not commissioned by EA orgs, b) external investigations commissioned by EA orgs, and c) internal investigations (as referenced in this post). Different groups also seem to be working on overlapping issues (specifically, the FTX and sexual harassment stuff). It might be helpful for there to be a summary post outlining the different investigations/projects that are aiming to "implement reforms at EA organizations," explaining the scope and timelines of various efforts (with a figure?), and justifying the processes that are being undertaken (including highlighting places where it makes sense to have multiple teams investigating the same issues or where there may still be gaps). [Edit: such a post exists, although I don't know whether this is complete or up to date; thanks Joris P and Holly for pointing this out.]
2. Your comment provides some clarification on the landscape of efforts aimed at identifying institutional reforms, but makes me more confused on other points. For instance, you note that "there is a separate set of investigations" into Owen's behavior and the CHT's response, and acknowledge that it would not be appropriate for you to be involved in this, but also say that the present project/task force is exploring reforms related to sexual misconduct. These are related issues, especially given that the CHT is currently the main (only?) institution in the community explicitly meant to respond to sexual misconduct. I understand why you might think your involvement in the narrower (OCB) project is inappropriate, but your involvement in the broader project is appropriate, but I'm not sure I agree (though it's hard for me to assess this, because I don't fully understand what complementary efforts are ongoing).
3. The fact that it's hard for outsiders to figure out what efforts at reform are being undertaken makes it hard for the community to assess whether such efforts are sufficient/necessary/redundant. In short: I worry about a lack of accountability.
4. I further worry that (inadvertently) overstating the legitimacy of some of these processes (e.g., calling the present project a "task force") may provide a false sense of security about the sufficiency of existing efforts at institutional reform.

Hello, couple of points. 
1) To me, your definition isn't what a "task force" means (a temporary grouping under one leader for the purpose of accomplishing a definite objective.)
2) If you are affiliated with OP or CEA, unless you very explicitly say you aren't working on their behalf (I didn't see this in the post- I apologize if I am wrong), you will be seen as both having an affiliation with your organization and based upon that authority in the EA movement on behalf of that organization. 
3) If it isn't sanctioned by EA organizations, who is paying for it? 
4) This doesn't address or really give sufficient air to Lilly's point which is whether fairly or not, members of said task force have had concerns raised that they may have made mistakes in the area of dealing with complaints around sexual misconduct. It therefore raises questions again whether fairly or not, about the possibility that they may have blind spots that would impede their ability to recommend an effective range of reform in this area. 
5) I do not love the trend I feel I keep seeing with CEA-related projects where they say or imply to a lay-person's definition "I own Y" so everyone else backs off and then nothing happens and they then say "Oh actually I don't own it and here's why the word I used doesn't mean what reasonable people think it would." 
I think Lilly's critique is carefully thought out, she clearly took the time to engage despite obvious reasons not to do so, and I don't think this response does her justice. Thank you. 

The worry isn’t that the task force’s mandate is broad; the worry is: why do we have two separate groups with closely related missions and overlapping personnel? And, more specifically, why should we think the task force is well-positioned to conduct this kind of review process, given (1) we have reason to doubt the efficacy of the CHT, which shares personnel with this task force and (2) the personnel overlap presents possible COIs.