I have a recommendation: set the focus of the discussion to be "how do we make near-mode progress on far-mode problems?"

Just to prime you on the sort of things I'd expect to come up:

• "discussion of abstract concepts". Many of us feel we already do too much of this, comparatively speaking.
• "identify measurable goods produced by orgs like SI or FHI". We can't directly measure xrisk, but we can measure things like papers produced or awareness-generating media coverage.
• "get expert opinion on the value of these goods" and see how wide the spread of opinion is.
• "build good relationships with experts" , try and find out what's really going on inside their minds and where the core disagreements come from.
• "build a consensus on guidelines for rational debate"

Just to be clear, those points aren't a suggested agenda for a meeting but rather they're an example of what I'd expect to come out of a meeting - a list of points that a researcher could conceivably start working on tomorrow, and which (while they don't directly address the main issues) would seem to be aimed at directly tackling relevant stuff.