The example I highlighted is striking to me, given how much information flows through the community health team (much of which may not be representative or may be false or even exaggerated). There is also a selection bias in the information they receive (ie, mostly negative as the CH team deals with reports and you report someone when something bad has happened).

For example, say you're socially unaware and accidentally make someone feel uncomfortable at an EA event without realising it. If the person you made feel uncomfortable mentioned this to the community health team, would the team then mention it to the grantmakers when you apply for an EA Funds grant? Would the grantmakers believe the worst in you (given the CH team suffers selection bias)? Why does the fact you accidentally made someone feel uncomfortable at an event matter when it comes to applying for grant?

Now there are dozens of other situations you could come up with and a dozen ways to mitigate this, but the easiest option seems to be removing yourself from that role entirely.

.

As for more widely, I think the CH team don't know how to handle conflict of interest and even overestimated their abilities to do so previously (eg, Julia Wise thinking she could handle the Owen Cotten-Barret situation herself instead of bringing in external professionals). I think the CH team should look into other places where conflicts of interest could arise in the future (by team members holding too many positions). The EA Funds may or may not be one such place.

As part of potential changes, will there be a review into the conflict of interests the Community Health team face and could face in the future? For example, one potential conflict of interest to me is that some Community Health team members are Fund Advisors for EA Funds (which is also part of Effective Ventures).