That is not how neutrality works.
Due to history, and the possibility of being paid again in future, there may be what is called a potential conflict of interest.
But most important is perception. This is what's called a perceived conflict of interest, and it's the sort of thing you have to manage if you want a community based on trust to function well. Even if it seems silly, or like why can't we all just get along.
One way to manage them is to be up front about the relevant working history. Not doing so will be picked up as a sign that something relevant is being hidden deliberately to paint a different picture of interests, and therefore a different picture of likely future actions.
I found this article helpful:
https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/publications-and-resources/ibac-...
And Wikipedia's intro:
> Typically, a conflict of interest arises when an individual finds himself or herself occupying two social roles simultaneously which generate opposing benefits or loyalties.
> The existence of such conflicts is an objective fact, not a state of mind, and does not in itself indicate any lapse or moral error. However, especially where a decision is being taken in a fiduciary context, it is important that the contending interests be clearly identified and the process for separating them is rigorously established.
(Fiduciary means in the broader sense of being responsible for something managed in trust for others' benefit, such as Freenode for example, not just financial responsibility.)