This really made me think!
In a way my answer is easy since…I’m eager to work under the guidance of the Haskell Foundation board, and I welcome working with members of the board who want to engage/review the operations of what we might call the “Haskell Funding Advocates” team (if that is the name we want to go with).
Agreeing on this would also be fairly easy for me because my priority is to find some way to contribute and somehow be a part of the success of Haskell and the Haskell Foundation.
Also I recognize that there is a lot here that you would know and I don’t. It’s really hard to over state that one! 
On the other hand… with my simple view of things, there was no conflict in my mind between working closely with the Haskell Foundation and having a scope that goes beyond raising awareness about opportunities to donate directly to the Foundation (i.e. also raising awareness about opportunities to donate on github and patreon and others). Again, if there is conflict there, then this idea of a wider scope is not even a critical point for me, and a I would probably just let the issue die quietly except that maybe this is getting at something that could be valuable for me/us all to have clarity about.
The only reason this thought of scope came up for me is that @cdsmith had the idea that it could be valuable to the community to collect on one page all the different ways that people can contribute financially to the Haskell Ecosystem. (Hopefully I didn’t misrepresent his idea too much) That specific suggestion struck me as a great idea. If Chris didn’t want to do that himself or have it done some other way, then that would be something I would have liked to take on myself. Doing that seems like a simple, useful way to make a contribution which could be in line with the mission of the “Haskell Funding Advocates” (i.e. a mission of raising awareness in a useful way) and also with the mission of the Foundation to help nurture and co-ordinate the community/ecosystem. Again, I’m just saying what my thinking was before your last post.
Again either way this is not a deal breaker. I’m enthusiastic either way. But somehow there is still an issue there that is not fully resolved for me. On one hand I appreciate the co-ordination and structure that the foundation can bring to funding, on the other hand I also appreciate what @jhenahan says:
I clearly see issues with people asking for money individually if its not transparent how much they are receiving. That could be a clear conflict for the Foundation to be involved in supporting that.
I appreciate the points you made, and yet I’m still torn on this.
Maybe there is an argument to be made here that would be similiar to the justification for windows having the windows subsystem for linux. i.e. maintain a central role by coordinating/supporting access to the (funding) alternatives.
…so I still have some thinking to do about this, but count me as willing either way.