There should be more recognition that the core EA community is not a good fit for everyone, and more support and affirmation for ways to be involved in effectively doing good that don't require being heavily invested "in the community" per se.

EAGs should have critics and non EAs invited to speak

Will MacAskill should make an effort to reduce his visibility as the face of the movement and should elevate others instead

EA organizations should adhere closely to governance norms, as expressed e.g. here. 

[Edited to move the long blurb into the comments]

There should be robust whistleblower protections - an anonymous whistleblowing line, after which if nothing happens people are encouraged to go public with concerns.

"Recruitment" initiatives targeted at those under 18 should not receive further funding and should be discontinued.

Giving What We Can should be framed as the way for people to be engaged in the community without necessarily needing to change their jobs/make it their identity.

80000 hours podcast should platform more critics of EA/people adjacent to EA with very different approaches or conclusion with regards to what we do . Some suggestions: Luke Kemp, Zoe Cremer, Timnit Gebru, Emily Bender, Tim Lenton. Thus we can try and get their perspective and understand why we differ

The identity of those who attend the coordination forum and are on leaders slack channels should be made public

The wiki and intro groups should shift slightly towards displaying uncomfortable truths about EA. Less "we are excellent", more "we are complex and perhaps not for you"

While parties are fun, we should do what we can to ensure you don't need to attend them to work at EA organisations.

We should stop talking about "EAs" as if we are a big homogeneous group. We aren't. We work on set of causes, but have many varied beliefs and that's okay.

All of CEA/EV's spending above $500k should be publicly explained and defended

A much increased commitment to reasoning transparency around decisions people have questions about. For example, the purchase of Whytham Abbey, Twitter DMs with Musk and MacAskill, and claims of 2018-era warnings to EA leaders about SBF's trustworthiness. Overall, I'm much more interested in a culture change towards transparency, rather than in answers about any of those few examples.

The community should elect member(s) to CEA's board.

EA should have something akin to an AGM where community members can discuss large scale strategy

EA orgs should take financial stewardship and controls more seriously. More organizations should have financial professionals or there should be shared financial resources. Boards should have more financial experts even if they serve ex officio on finance/audit committees.

Most of these suggestions are too vague to be useful. Before people post, they need to read "Taboo EA should". And then when making suggestions, you need to be very specific about which actors they apply to and what specifically you want them to do.

e.g. Less "EA should democratize" and more "EA Funds should allow guest grantmakers with different perspectives to make 20% of their grants" (I don't endorse that suggestion, it's just an example)

Though I do want to say I appreciate this effort, Nathan!

EA funds funding should be allocated more democratically

Upvote for agreement with the general tone of the suggestion or if you think there is a good suggestion nearby.

Agreevote if you think they are well-framed.

Upvote for agreement, and agreevote for good framing? That's roughly the opposite of normal, which may confuse interpretation of the results.

EA should become much less reliant on key institutions like CEA, 80k, Will MacAskill or (previously) SBF

There should be an organisation that is responsible for auditing EA funders (who aren't audited by, say the US government) and publishing this information. 

There should be a poll to understand the opinions of people in EA around feeling uncomfortable at events. Then there can be a listening exercise similar to this one.

Rank-and-file members of the EA community, and/or their representatives, should have more of a say in the allocation of funding than they currently do.

There should be a community listening exercise around longtermism and impact now to avoid the otherwise inevitable community breakdown

The EA community should celebrate and amplify non-utilitarian serious do-gooding.

The community should be able to remove members from CEA's board/leadership

More outside expertise should be welcomed. All roles in EA organizations should be advertised on open platforms like LinkedIn, and while selecting based on "culture fit" is allowed, people without previous EA exposure should not be disqualified outright. 

There should be a social space for people who leave EA, and it should be easy to leave EA.

80000 hours podcast should debate more critics of EA processes/behavior with very different approaches or conclusion with regards to what we do.

Some suggestions:

• Jess Whittlestone
• One of the more left-wing EAs (Habiba Islam, Garrison Lovely)
• Zoe Cremer
• Someone from more traditional charity space

Cause-area communities should be stronger and more self-reliant.

A project should be funded that aims to understand why 71% of EAs who responded to the 2020 survey self-identify as male, what problems could arise from the gender balance skewing this way, and what interventions could redress said balance.

Most suggestions I see for alternative community norms to the ones we currently have seem to throw out many of the upsides of the community norms they're trying to replace.

CEA should appoint a community ombudsman (whose job is explicitly to serve the community, rather than 'have positive impact')

Attempts to reduce our dependency on a few single points of failure in community leaders (Will MacAskill, Toby Ord, Rob Wiblin, Holden Karnofsky...). I think it's a moderately bad sign if our community leaders don't circulate naturally every half-decade or so, since that means it's more about the personalities than the ideas, and is un-meritocratic, assuming that good leadership skills and ideas are not vanishingly rare.

CEA should stop implicitly discouraging community members from telling journalists they trust information.

There should be scandal markets about top community figures and their likelihood of committing crimes/being involved in sexual scandals

We should seek for ourselves to no longer be a community, but instead a professional network around a set of orgs with similar missions.

There should be more focus on sub communities applying EA principles to various cause areas vs. such an extensive focus on a singular EA community. Different areas have different needs, recruitment strategies, PR interests, etc.

When trying to replace community norms, we should try to preserve the upsides of having the previous community norms.

Many EA organizations currently make decisions based on a western-centric (for lack of a better word) mindset, accidentally silencing voices coming from outside. More EAGs/job opportunities should be held outside of USA/UK/EU since third-world countries have a hard time getting a Visa for developed countries.

The EA community is on the margin too excited to hear about criticism.

Get everyone to stop using EA as a homogeneous group - ex. by making sure in the Intro fellowship the fact that there is no one-EA is a key point, getting people to not use that language on the Forum, etc

By the way, I think it's really cool of you, Nathan, to nourish this conversation.

I think it's a conversation we should never stop having, and we should create online and offline spaces where it can happen.

Effective Cassandra

A forecasting contest (in addition to the EA criticism contest) to answer "what is the worst hazard that will happen to the EA community in the next couple of years?" (or whatever period people think is more adequate). The best responses, selected by a jury on the basis of their usefulness and justification, receive the first prize; the second prize will be given two years later to the forecaster who predicts the actual answer.

Most of the focus going into reevaluating community norms feels misplaced.

All the focus going into reevaluating community norms feels misplaced.

CEA - and perhaps other core orgs - should split into separate entities with smaller focuses, and encouraging the founding of organisations that compete on those focuses, so there's no 'too big to fail' logic in the movement.

We should encourage EAs to find ways to start EA projects inside existing, non-EA organisations.

If the CEA has banned an individual from CEA events for misconduct, also ban them from the EA forum and Twitter community. 

There should be a community-written EA handbook on the wiki alongside the CEA-written one.

We should change the longtermism pitch and make it more realistic for people who would otherwise be deterred. Avoid (at first) mentioning trillions of potential future people or even existential risks, and put more emphasis on how these risks (e.g. pandemics, nuclear wars, etc.) can affect actual people in our lifetime.

CEA should detail how and to what extent they mamage EA groups that receive funding from them

There should be alternatives to EAGs/EAGxs - one's that are cause area specific and/or for people interested in EA ideas but not necessarily needing to call yourself an EA.

Effective Altruism should disassociate itself from its major funders - mainly Dustin Moskovitz at this point. Take the money, but don't talk about them.

The EA community should enter coalitions with other social movements to further our shared goals.

EA organizations should be run democratically, and the karma system, or at least the agreement karma, should also be (more) democratic.

EDIT: I would like to point out that having a lot of disagreement karma doesn't necessarily mean most people disagree. When this suggestion had three votes it had positive agreement karma, but when I returned at five votes it had negative:

I stuck around for a bit to see how the karma would evolve:

What we see is that the downvotes contain a lot more voting weight than the upvotes. This seems logical, people with more voting power have an incentive to use that power to make sure they don't lose it. We really cannot conclude what the EA community believes/wants based on the results of the karma-system, and if we want to know what the community really wants I suggest we use polls/surveys instead.

All cause areas should have a wiki article and people should be able to up and downvote them to provide a community priority ranking. 

EA should focus more on community-wide governance

EA community building should be coordinated and funded primarily at the national level

At least one key EA figure should step back as a result of the FTX crisis (not including anyone who worked at FTX/Alameda). 

Write all the information we know about different topics on the wiki so that new members can get up to speed quickly about potentially damaging topics.

Almost all community norms we currently have have many upsides we should try to maintain.

A significant fraction of the focus going into reevaluating community norms feels misplaced.

I think building epistemic health infrastructure is currently the most effective way to improve EA epistemic health, and is the biggest gap in EA epistemics.

I elaborated on this in my shortform. If the suggestion above seems too vague, there're also examples in the shortform. (I plan to coordinate a discussion/brainstorming on this topic among people with relevant interests; please do PM me if you're interested)

(I was late to the party, but since Nathan encourages late comments, I'm posting my suggestion anyways.)

CEA should be publish their financial sources

For future earners to give: de-correlate the fate of EA from the fate of crypto.

Eventually, a re-negotiated relationship style of EA with billionaire funders: donating large amounts of money is worth some amount of social reward, but not a 'hero worship' amount. We should in future be more ready to criticise the way in which billionaire donors make their fortunes (e.g. the critique that making a fortune in crypto facilitates people getting scammed), rather than overlooking ways in which people might do harm with EtG (I know I had had cognitive dissonance about this re FTX).

80000 hours podcast should debate more critics of EA/people adjacent to EA with very different approaches or conclusion with regards to what we do . Some suggestions: Luke Kemp, Zoe Cremer, Timnit Gebru, Emily Bender, Tim Lenton.

A stronger, more deliberate push (backed by funding) should be made to enter professional places (by opening professional groups) and attract mid-to-late-stage professionals from diverse industries, as well as people in countries where EA has no presence. A lesser imperative should be placed on university groups.

There should be a separate body to represent communities which is a combination of elected and randomly assigned members. Its purpose is to have a check on the un-elected experts in other organizations while being kept in check by them in turn.

There should be a clear separation between funding of cause areas and people working on specific cause areas to avoid conflicts of interest that inevitably affects people's judgements. For contentious cause areas it may be better to commission a broad group of expert stakeholders with a diversity of knowledge, background and opinions to assess the validity of a cause area based on EA criteria. There are currently some cause areas that seem very ideologically driven by some highly regarded folks in EA. These folks seem to both generate the material that is the main source material that supports the cause area as well as are the ones steering funding. This asymmetry in power and funding undoubtedly influences the cause areas that end up becoming and staying prominent in EA.

As always I'm surprised that a post that's getting lots of interaction in the answers isn't getting upvotes.

Agreevote if that's because you don't think more people should see it. Disagreevote if you have some other reason for not upvoting the main post.

EA should not be an identity. There is too much disagreement within the movement (this is good!) to consider yourself "an EA".

Funding in EA funders should be democratically allocated.