The FOSS developers I am thinking of care deeply about autonomy and decentralization. ECC appears to hold quite a few development meetings in private and there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding transaction fees, network privacy, future shielded pools, and whether or not transparent transactions will eventually be dissalowed on the network.
For true FOSS projects, one has the autonomy to build solutions freely and users can choose to use it or not. In Bitcoin it is clear that miners have a voice and no single corporation has undue influence on what Bitcoin is. The fight over the Zcash trademark demonstrated that both ECC and ZF care deeply about controlling the definition of Zcash. This is problematic when outside developers, even with community support have a different vision for Zcash and want to retain that name.
This is a huge problem when different developers have plans that rely on key decisions such as fees, network privacy, and shielded pools are given little transparency into future protocol changes and timeline. Network effect matters to a lot of developers, so submitting a pull request, being denied a merge by the trademark owners and deciding to launch a fork (without the Zcash name) is not a viable solution for most.
The development community would benefit from open discussion about all major protocol changes and guidance from the trademark owners about the key areas I identified.
Right now I am testing a commercial application for use of the encrypted memo field. I have fee algorithm preferences but what I really need is fee enforcement on the protocol level.
In the meantime I have no choice but to build redundancy by storing data on another chain in case Zcash does not prove sustainable for my use case. What should be a marketing opportunity for Zcash will be abstracted away because I have I cannot read the minds of the trademark owners or blindly trust that they will allow for the changes that need to be made to be merged into Zcash.