Thanks a lot, Charlotte! :D 

Hi Juliana! This was a proactive measure, luckily. Our directors and board saw this topic as one that needed addressing last year, and decided to make it part of our strategy and key results for 2023.

Thanks a lot for the encouragement, Ludwig! :)

1 - All good, and sorry for my late reply :) I think I understand better what you meant now. 
2 - I'd agree, yes.

Apologies for the super late reply, I didn't check the forum for a while. 
I'd be especially interested in topic 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 :) 
Which doesn't mean that the others would not be interesting or of value, I just personally think I have a better grasp of the concepts.

Thanks James for your post, I like that you tried to dissect the rather vague idea of "social change" a bit.

1. Do you agree that broadly speaking, EA is an attempt to bring about social change? 
   1. Yup
2. Is there something missing from the list of social change approaches I’ve described?
   1. Not sure - there are very different ways of dividing aspects of social change, that class things as approaches to elicit personal, relational, cultural/knowledge & structural change. Have a look, but I think that framework is rather different from the one you used.
3. What do you think EA’s current social change portfolio is?
   1. not sure - I don't think I have better overview than you.
4. What do you think it ought to be? 
   1. I generally agree with your idea here, I'd also like to see more engagement with other subgroups in the fields that EA moves into, and more influence on(new) organizations that are not EA. Reducing the networking aspect might also help resolve the problems we have with implicit and invisible hierarchies and power structures.
5. How should we inform the above decision? Historical case studies? Something else?
   1. Check out examples of movements similar to EA that achieved their goals
   2. If we want to be able to adapt to changes in morality, we might want to stick closer to movement support, as all other ways of influence tend to get rigid quickly

Thank you so much for writing this amazing, long, deep post. Thanks you for mustering up the strength to engage with the forum (even though it doesn't feel like a very safe space), and for speaking to the Times. As another woman, I wish it wasn't necessary, but it seemed to have been. 
I would love to see more of your writing, I think the other posts in your sequence could be super interesting and would hopefully inform many people in this community.

Ah, good to know! :) 

as EA moved from global health, to AI safety, the core EA principles remained the same, but the messaging changed.

I think that's the first time I've seen this written as clearly as here, and I don't really like it or agree. My impression is that there are many people attracted to EA not because of AIS, who also won't become interested in AIS/aren't the right fit for that field. If the money for community building comes mainly from an interest to attract more people into AIS (as it sounds here), and is mainly intended for that, why keep funding EA in general? I would welcome more nuanced portrayals what EA community building aims to support, like facilitating other types of longtermist career changes, creating an intellectual community motivated by similar moral goals, and supporting people who have changed their careers to stick with their paths.

On the last, and in line with what Elisabeth pointed to: I also get the impression that you forget to mention the value of community for keeping strong values, and sticking to your plan. Especially if you move in a work culture that incentivizes very different values than what EAs tend to value. Having a community of like-minded people with similar core values is important for those who won't change careers anymore, but want to stick to the highly impactful ones they have chosen to pursue. The value of community to them comes from helping them stick to their path.

(Her post ... this is Habiba)