Great questions. I can answer some of them.
We haven’t stated any fixed percentages, so it’s up for debate. The underlying desire is to not have unilateral control over the future of Zcash. Some control is desired; ultimate authority is not.
That was @amiller personally, not the Foundation.
However, the Foundation agrees that the opt-in issue needs to be dissected and examined in depth. We’re internally workshopping a document that @acityinohio wrote, which we have committed to releasing no later than August 6. It goes into detail on this topic, among others.
I can’t answer most of the questions in #3 (although I did post a relevant comment in Sarang’s thread). But this question I can address:
Speaking for the Foundation, not ECC (to be crystal clear): We will treat proposals equally up until they become ZIPs, at which point it will be necessary to rigorously deconstruct their pros and cons and decide between mutually exclusive paths forward. I don’t think that’s possible without making judgments about which ZIPs are good ideas and which should be eliminated.
There are some democratic elements to this process, but also technocratic ones — personally, as a Zcash user, I want expert gatekeepers to watch for changes that might break or weaken Zcash. That’s what the ZIP editors do, on behalf of their respective organizations.
This will also be addressed in @acityinohio’s document.
There’s no concrete ETA right now. Legal agreements are hard, the lawyers have to do their thing, everyone has to attend a bunch of meetings to negotiate and re-negotiate. The latest from @acityinohio is that it’s moving forward but not done yet.
I hope this helps! I know the lack of clarity is frustrating, and we hope to offer better guidance on the ZF’s perspective soon.