To be really candid with you, at least in American English and the business communications cultures I'm most familiar with, this reads like you're trying to manage this situation, and manage me in an HR-ish or customer-service-y way, while making clear to onlookers that you absolutely will never answer this question.    

Is that the effect you want me to take away from your reply? I'm guessing it isn't; if that guess is right, you might want to course-correct.

(Cross-posted from the LW thread on this, not trying to double-post, but just to flag this concern here as well)

I think these people are trying to be good people in a tough situation.

But I don't think it's possibly tenable to evaluate PauseAI Global without understanding the actions of its US branch. I do not think this attempt to wave away widespread community discussions with a brief mention of "PauseAI US, which is a distinct entity with a different leadership team and approach" is remotely sufficient.

I also do not believe the history provided above is complete or candid without describing PauseAI Global's co-evolution with PauseAI US in a much more substantive manner.

I would recommend greater candor and proactive disclosure while seeking funding.

I think if your approach is causing you to think that Tristan is "threatening not to care" about AI risk, then you're really missing the mark, Holly. 

Tristan demonstrably has made pretty big personal sacrifices to work on AI, literally worked with Felix on your team on an AI Safety Camp project about arguing that grassroots Congressional outreach is good (I was also working on that team), and is continuing to look for opportunities to work on AI risk reduction during and after grad school.

Tristan is, in short, the kind of person that if you were looking to hire another person in DC, I'd be recommending to you to consider.  He very much is aligned with your core strategy!  If I had to guess, I'd guess that he considers himself to be a supporter of PauseAI US's approach!

Given how you're engaging on this thread, I'll bet that you'll reply to this post by saying something like, "see, his response this proves how pernicious EA culture is, that it can corrupt even people who should be on board."  I would politely ask you to consider the possibility instead that, at least sometimes, you're shooting at the wrong targets.
 

I think the average person who is likely to come across this would be benefitted by having the "influence" and "participate" content come more quickly, perhaps at the cost of the "learn" section being shorter.

People often feel a lack of agency when they learn about AI risk.  Giving them agency back can be a really good thing. 

Note that you should also understand a) how the US government sees China and why, b) how China sees the US and why in order to be able to have a full analysis here.