Well, my understanding of what Josh is proposing is one where signing keys are allocated to different organisations or groups. In the diagram below, I assume that (hypothetically) the five members of the Zcash Community Grants committee would collectively decide whether they wanted to sign off on a grant application.
Presumably, it would be up to the ZCG committee members to agree how they would decide whether they collectively approve a grant application (and sign the corresponding transaction to send the funds to the applicant). They could adopt a policy of only approving grant applications where all five ZCG committee members are in favour, or a simple majority…
In any case, my interpretation of this diagram is that ZCG only gets a single “vote” in this Zcash Funding Bloc process (as opposed to five votes), and the same goes for the other organisations listed.
(I’m more than happy to have my understanding/assumptions corrected, by the way.)
By contrast, the process we use for the Minor Grants program gives everyone on ZCAP a single vote.
Multiple different approaches are possible: “one person, one vote”, “one organisation/group, one vote”, weighted polling of different groups (e.g. core developers’ votes get weighted higher than another type of voter) but there are common issues across them all:
- how to maximize Sybil resistance and minimize duplication across groups (i.e. to minimize the risk that one person can vote multiple times), and
- what the eligibility criteria should be.