@Dodger’s analysis and suggestions above sound eminently reasonable to me. They match my understanding of a key part of the problem, and they offer a practical way forward that addresses the most urgent issues with minimal fanfare and maximal impact.
I would just add that we do need to stagger the elections (even if it means more frequent ZCAP polls to keep durations reasonable). And I think that would require an amendment of ZIP 1014.
Edited:
Actually I do have a reservation:
For example, we’ll be able to filter new grant applications in advance of the fortnightly ZOMG meetings so that any that do not meet the Committee’s criteria can are excluded from the agenda, while the Ecosystem Relations Manager can respond to the applicant appropriately (e.g. requesting more information, prompting them to post to the forums, etc.).
[…]
Filtering out grant applications that do not meet the definition of a major grant could go some way to reducing the time burden.
I don’t like putting ZF as a filter to ZOMG, which could hypothetically create some undue bias or influence on ZOMG’s decisions (assuming they don’t have time to double-check the filter, which is the whole point). It would be better if applicants self-selected for ZOMG consideration, guided by clear-enough criteria (e.g., thresholds on dollar amounts or duration). Is this realistic?
And on related note: we also need more clarity on how to get a ZF grant that is not major and does not go through ZOMG. What’s the current process and should it be improved?