I agree that we need better consensus mechanisms although consensus seems like a pretty tricky problem.
I well understand that some of the grants ZCG has approved have had highly vocal detractors (along with a lot of support that was less vehemently expressed, by the way!).
However, I don’t think the main issue is that it’s too much responsibility to put on five people. All the ZCG members I’ve worked with are high integrity, conscientious, thoughtful people, deeply aligned with the Zcash mission. It’s actually incredible to me how much devotion and work I’ve seen from them. I think five such people can do a lot!
But they are all also busy working full time jobs, many with children at home to support.
In my opinion, one way to get better performance from the ZCG would be to enable at least some members not to have to work other jobs while they do this.
ZCG work is not all about the final decision. As I’ve said before, even with a fully decentralised decision-making system in place, like coin holder voting 
, much of the role that the ZCG is playing will probably still be valuable, because it entails working with applicants to get their proposals aligned with what the community needs and wants.
There is advocacy in both directions, networking (getting the right people talking to each other), and dealing with personality quirks and clashes. There’s mediation, negotiation, listening, and then working to figure out which community values are at stake, what the opportunity costs are, and trying to represent the myriad voices at play. Not to mention staying on top of developments in different corners of the Zcash space and the industries that it intersects so that all of that is taken into account.
My sense is that even if the final vote casting on grants is done by a wider group of people, having a dedicated committee to do this kind of work will still be extremely valuable, perhaps especially if the people involved don’t have to wedge it in the cracks of their careers.
