Beyond transparently disclosing financial and personal relationships with (e.g.) podcast guests or grantees, EA institutions should avoid apparent conflicts of interest more strictly. For example, grant reviewers should recuse themselves from reviewing proposals by their housemates.

Give users the ability to choose among several karma-calculation formulas for how they experience the Forum. If they want a Forum experience where everyone's votes have equal weight, there could be a Use Democratic Karma setting. Or stick with Traditional Karma. Or Show Randomly / No Karma. There's no clear need for the Forum to impose the same sorting values on everyone.

EA should engage more with existing academic research in fields such as such as Disaster Risk Reduction, Futures Studies, and Science and Technology Studies

Set up at least one EA fund that uses the quadratic funding mechanism combined with a minimal vetting process to ensure that all donation recipients are aligned with EA.

How this could work:

• Users can nominate organizations/projects to be included in the quadratic funding pool.
• Admins vet donation candidates against a minimal set of criteria to ensure quality, e.g. "Does this project clear a bar for cost-effectiveness according to a defined value system?"
• Approved projects are displayed on the website with estimates of cost-effectiveness w.r.t. relevant outcomes.
• Users donate money to any project in the pool that they want, and their donations are matched according to the QF mechanism every month or quarter.

This dovetails with increasing diversity of moral views in EA.

There should be 1 searchable database of all EA grants.

EA orgs should experiment with hiring ads targets specifically at experts in the field and consider how much those experts need a knowledge of EA for the specific role.

Acknowledge that sometimes issues are fraught and that we should discuss them more slowly (while still having our normal honesty norms)

Employees of EA organisations should not be pressured by their superiors against publishing work critical of core beliefs. 

A study should be conducted that records and analyses the reactions and impressions of people when first encountering EA. Special attention should be paid to reactions of underrepresented groups such as groups based on demographics (age, race, gender, etc.), worldview (politics, religion, etc.) or background (socio economic status, major etc.).

EA should recruit more from the humanities and social studies fields.

Any answer below this shouldn't happen.

ie any answer with less upvotes on it's top level comment shouldn't happen. This is a way to broadly signal at what point you think the answers "become worth doing". Edited for clarity, thanks Guy

Cap the number of strong votes per week.

Strong votes with large weights have their uses in uncommon situations. But these situations are uncommon, so instead of weakening strong votes, make them rarer.

The guideline says use them only in exceptional cases, but there is no mechanism enforcing it: socially, strong votes are anonymous and look like standard votes; and technically, any number of them could be used. They could make a comment section appear very one-sided, but with rarity, some ideas can be lifted/hidden, and the rest of the section can be more diverse.

I do not think this is a problem now, because current power users are responsible. But this is our fortune and not a fact, and could change in the future. Incidentally, this would also set a bar for what is considered exceptional, like this comment is in the top X this week.

Central EA organizations should not make any major reforms for 6 months to allow for a period of reflection and avoid hasty decisions

Every EA-affiliated org should clearly state in their website their sources of funding that contributed over >$100k.

We should encourage and possibly fund adversarial collaborations on controversial issues in EA.

Peer reviewed academic research on a given subject should be given higher credence than blogposts by EA friendly sources. 

Karma should have equal weight between users.

edited to add "between users"

Making EA appeal to a wider range of moral views

EA is theoretically compatible with a wide range of moral views, but our own rhetoric often conflates EA with utilitarianism. Right now, if you hold moral views other than utilitarianism (including variants of utilitarianism such as negative utilitarianism), you often have to do your own homework as to what those views imply you should do to achieve the greatest good. Therefore, we should spend more effort making EA appeal to a wider range of moral views besides utilitarianism.

What this could entail:

• More practical advice (including donation and career advice) for altruists with common moral views besides utilitarianism, such as:
  • Views that emphasize distributive justice, such as prioritarianism and egalitarianism
    • This blog post from 2016 claims that EA priorities, at least in the global health and development space, are aligned with prioritarian and egalitarian views. However, this might not generalize to other EA causes such as longtermism.
  • Special consideration for rectifying historical injustices
• Creating donation funds for people who hold moral views other than utilitarianism
• Describing EA in ways that generalize to moral views besides utilitarianism, at least in some introductory texts

"EA institutions should select for diversity with respect to hiring"

Paraphrased from https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/54vAiSFkYszTWWWv4/doing-ea-better-1#Critique 

"EA should establish public conference(s) or assemblies for discussing reforms within 6 months, with open invitations for EAs to attend without a selection process. For example, an “online forum of concerns”:

• Every year invite all EAs to raise any worries they have about EA central organisations
• These organisations declare beforehand that they will address the top concerns and worries, as voted by the attendees
• Establish voting mechanism, e.g. upvotes on worries that seem most pressing"

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/54vAiSFkYszTWWWv4/doing-ea-better-1#Critique 

OpenPhil should found a counter foundation that has as its main goal critical reporting, investigative journalism and “counter research” about EA and other philanthropic institutions.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/54vAiSFkYszTWWWv4/doing-ea-better-1#Critique 

The wiki should aim to contain distillations of useful knowledge in other fields in EA language - feminism, psychology etc.

"When EA books or sections of books are co-written by several authors, co-authors should be given appropriate attribution"

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/54vAiSFkYszTWWWv4/doing-ea-better-1#Critique 

EA should periodically re-evaluate and re-examine core beliefs to see if they still hold up over time. 

Feel less of a need to quantify everything

"I am 90% sure that" - you don't need to say it.

Note I am providing options for people to vote on. I disagree with this one.

EA orgs should aim to be less politically and demographically homogenous.

You should be able to give away your forum karma.

There should be some way of telling whether a karma score is caused by a number of small upvotes by several people or whether it is a result of a single strong upvote/downvote by one person. Edit: Turns out there's already a way to do this, see the comment below.

"Funding bodies should not be able to hire researchers who have previously been recipients in the last e.g. 5 years, nor should funders be able to join recipient organisations within e.g. 5 years of leaving their post"

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/54vAiSFkYszTWWWv4/doing-ea-better-1#Employment

"EA institutions should recruit known critics of EA and offer them e.g. a year of funding to write up long-form deep critiques"

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/54vAiSFkYszTWWWv4/doing-ea-better-1#Critique

We should consider answers on this thread based on agreement karma not upvoting