Hello, couple of points. 
1) To me, your definition isn't what a "task force" means (a temporary grouping under one leader for the purpose of accomplishing a definite objective.)
2) If you are affiliated with OP or CEA, unless you very explicitly say you aren't working on their behalf (I didn't see this in the post- I apologize if I am wrong), you will be seen as both having an affiliation with your organization and based upon that authority in the EA movement on behalf of that organization. 
3) If it isn't sanctioned by EA organizations, who is paying for it? 
4) This doesn't address or really give sufficient air to Lilly's point which is whether fairly or not, members of said task force have had concerns raised that they may have made mistakes in the area of dealing with complaints around sexual misconduct. It therefore raises questions again whether fairly or not, about the possibility that they may have blind spots that would impede their ability to recommend an effective range of reform in this area. 
5) I do not love the trend I feel I keep seeing with CEA-related projects where they say or imply to a lay-person's definition "I own Y" so everyone else backs off and then nothing happens and they then say "Oh actually I don't own it and here's why the word I used doesn't mean what reasonable people think it would." 
I think Lilly's critique is carefully thought out, she clearly took the time to engage despite obvious reasons not to do so, and I don't think this response does her justice. Thank you. 

I may benefit from that myself :D I will take a look :) 

Eh, I read it. I think you were absolutely right and if you were rude it was deserved in this case tbh.  Seems insanely irresponsible to mention someone being cranky on Facebook in the same breath as abuse given that the Eye of Sauron is pointed dead at us right now.  

Please don't feel bad. Good luck with school :)  

"It didn't occur to me that someone familiar with lower-class banter culture would have such different opinions from me about the punishment, so I appreciate you speaking up!" 
1. It's not banter, it's sexual harassment. We know banter, it's playful and consensual. It's not this. 
2. Being poor made me vulnerable, I don't want anyone to go through what I did, and to the extent I have jurisdiction, I'm staking my flag and dying on the hill that people who harass get kicked out.  
We disagree and I'm pretty crabby about your post but I appreciate your stated openness to engaging with me on this issue.  

"If any of them decided to engage further and made clumsy comments while getting used to EA culture, I would want them to be treated with empathy. Much of the conversation around the Time article (especially the response to Owen Cotton-Barratt’s mistake) has given me the impression that they would not be." 

1. That does not give the impression of thinking his behavior was serious (you reference clumsy comments and refer to his behavior as a "mistake") and when you combine it with referencing banter culture it comes across like you are saying he was just bantering which he clearly was not.    
2.  I haven't expressed an opinion on punishment here.  My core issue here is that I object to painting a strong stance on harassment as detrimental to socio-economic diversity and the implicature that carries with it.

I really think we are speaking past one another. Back to brass tacks:
1. I do not see Owen's behavior as being okay in any context. 
2. I understand and know well the banter culture you are referring to but what he did is way outside the pale and classifying it as banter is muddying the waters and clouding how serious his behavior actually was. 
3. I resent the presentation of taking a strong stance against harassment and verbal abuse as a detriment to socioeconomic diversity. 
4. "So I don't know what direction we should shift our norms in overall." I reject the norm framing but it seems pretty obvious to me that there can be no place for harassment in EA and if you think my message was impolite and you wish I had been kinder it seems you have that preference too. 

As stated on the other post:  
"As someone from a poor family, I find the implicature of this piece, that I cannot control myself from harassing and bullying people, ridiculously offensive to the point of absurdity. The fact it hasn't got more pushback is the perfect example of "Tell me you live in a bubble without telling me you live in a bubble." I did have a good chuckle at the idea of Owen trying this anywhere near my very blue-collar father though so thanks for that. "

As someone from a poor family, I find the implicature of this piece, that I cannot control myself from harassing and bullying people, ridiculously offensive to the point of absurdity. The fact it hasn't got more pushback is the perfect example of "Tell me you live in a bubble without telling me you live in a bubble." I did have a good chuckle at the idea of Owen trying this anywhere near my very blue-collar father though so thanks for that. 

Having specific wording for people to indicate that they literally want to make a bet seems fine, but policing ordinary language use in an abrasive and unwelcoming way is a very bad idea. EA will be much more effective in its stated goal if it is accessible, welcoming, and friendly to new people--and people who want to talk like normal people.