I think we currently run applications past EA Germany informally (at least for folks we don’t yet know), just asking if they know anything they think we should be aware of. I’d assume that includes CEA info. It’s not something we’re required to do; it just seems like a sensible practice, and one where we always reserve the right to make our own decision.

But this case is not about an exclusion from some specific event. It’s about a full-on exclusion from CEA events. Other orgs and projects in the ecosystem rely on CEA‘s “blacklist” to guide their admissions. Our Berlin coworking space TEAMWORK checks applicants against that list too. So being on there means many doors will be shut for you and I‘ve historically read it as something like „that person is cancelled in EA (and probably for good reasons)“.

I feel ambivalent about "if someone is going to be a pain is a perfectly reasonable reason to exclude them". Yes, some people can be a pain at events, making the experience worse for many others. That sucks and should be avoided. But if someone is excluded for that reason, it should be made clear why, in a way that doesn’t lump them together with people who’ve done much worse things.

In any case, none of this is relevant to Laura’s case, because she’s a pleasure to be around.

Even a questionable claim for unpaid work doesn’t seem to warrant exclusion from EA events. (Questionable in the sense that reasonable people may disagree and both sides have a point.) And winning in court at least makes it much less likely that Laura’s claim was completely unreasonable. (I don’t have any insight into the merits of Laura’s claim.)

I find this entire case very irritating, Catherine. I've known Laura for many years and have no reason to believe that she's lying, let alone poses a risk to (C)EA events. The very idea honestly sounds fairly absurd to me, even if "risk" is taken in a wide sense. I'm of course open to the possibility that additional information could change my mind. But that would be surprising and CEA apparently isn't going to share such info. I realise that sharing more could be difficult for confidentiality reasons. Still, the upshot is that it leaves me and probably many other folks in the EA communities Laura is a part of very frustrated and questioning CH's judgement.

Laura's account of what happened appears to be this: a conflict with her employer arises, Laura sues the employer, the employer contacts CH, CH blacklists Laura without asking for her side of the story, Laura wins in court and CH doesn't update. I'd appreciate it if you could at least point to the step where you disagree.

Power for Democracies’ first research findings are out

More info in this joint webinar with Effektiv Spenden from last Tuesday. Most of it is in German, but Samantha Sekar presents the main research update in English.
👉 Direct link to Samantha’s part

Teaser: Their first giving recommendations focus on Turkey, Argentina, and the US.

Major update on our Defending Democracy Fund

The beta phase wrapped up on July 30, 2025. Until then, the fund focused on initiatives strengthening democracy in Germany — but it now supports the most promising pro-democracy projects worldwide.

This new global grantmaking is guided by research from Power for Democracies — the first international charity evaluator for democracy. Its first research results will be published in November 2025.

If you’d like to learn more, you can watch this webinar from October 2, 2025, where Stephan Schwahlen explains the reasoning and next steps.

Very nice work, I'm excited about this new communications effort! (Minor point: Isn't there an important book missing under resources?)

TEAMWORK can be somewhat hard to find at first, so Antonia created this handy little guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17nZqyRuuE4qPZyqWUqSpThMaANhQvb8IwwWoJ3YHrRM/edit?usp=sharing