Folks, I originally posted the O.P. in this thread because I was alarmed that four out of five ZOMG committee members were stepping down.
As I said in the O.P., that’s a red flag and I advised the Zcash community to take it seriously, to investigate and bring forward information about what needs to be improved, and to make improvements. Since then there have been quite a few ideas kicked around in here and some useful facts about how things have worked so far inside ZOMG, especially from ML, Holmes, Chris, and Shawn. See all their recent posts.
I want to say I’m really grateful to all of them for contributing to the community in this way by working hard and spending a lot of their valuable time trying to set up the next ZOMG for success even though they are on their way out and have basically nothing to gain for themselves personally or professionally. (And perhaps something to lose if people who disagree are angry at them for speaking up instead of just letting things slide!)
I haven’t caught up on all the threads (although I’m trying), and I don’t currently have specific opinions about what the Zcash community ought to do/ought not to do. Or at least, no more specific than I had when we started this process! 
I just re-read the post I wrote sixteen months ago, with the help of my colleagues at ECC, and it all still sounds highly relevant!
Anyway, my point in adding this further comment on this thread is not to opine on any specific decisions, but just to point out:
Alarm bells! Red flags!
Shawn has been a pillar of the community since before the Genesis block, literally everyone trusts him, including me, and he’s the only reason why this place (the forum) is a reasonable place to have a discussion instead of a cesspool to stay away from. The fact that he, too, is stepping down is a major red flag!
This really reinforces my belief that something is structurally wrong with the MGRC/ZOMG structure and that we are likely to get worse results next time around — potentially wasting our money and our opportunity — if we don’t figure out what went wrong and make targeted improvements.
(By the way, this belief of mine is entirely consistent with Shawn’s statement that the primary driver of him stepping down is that he got a promotion at work and he needs to spend more time with his family. This shows that structurally, ZOMG is currently not set up to attract the best people—like Shawn and ML—and to enable them to remain highly engaged and to stick with it long-term. Do comparable grant programs like those at Ethereum, Solana, Algorand, Polygon, etc etc etc have a similar structure to this and are they getting similar results? I honestly don’t know.)
I’d suggest that we investigate how other programs are structured that we consider to be successful examples to emulate, and that we lean on the outgoing ZOMG members — who are continuing to contributing mightily to our shared mission by doing this — to provide their recommendations about what should be changed to set up future ZOMGs for success.
By the way, one more thing that I noticed when reading my/ECC’s post from 16 months ago:
At the time that the Community collectively settled on ZIP 1014, and held the initial MGRC/ZOMG elections the price of ZEC was $50/ZEC and the 8% was worth about $5M per year. Today ZEC is $140/ZEC, which means the 8% is worth closer to $15M per year! That’s great — it really increases the opportunity that we as a community have to prime the pump of positive feedback loops, but it also really increases the “governance load” on both the individuals involved (both ZOMG members and the Zfnd folks who work with them) and on the structure itself.
As the amount of money involved increases, so too increases the need for structural improvements, community oversight, and harder and harder work on everyone’s part to steward that money well!