[With my personal hat on, not my ZF board member hat]
I think that might be the crux of the disagreement here.
Just as a thought experiment, let’s think of “the community” as a single entity Mr. Community who has hired contractors to build a house. The contractors have been doing a really great job building this house on a solid foundation, making sure it surpasses code requirements, going above and beyond to get the house done better than expected. But Mr. Community really, really needs a shed to be built in his back yard to store his motorbike, because if that’s not built soon his motorbike is going to get damaged by the next hail storm. It’s so important to him that he says: I’m going to withhold payments to all the contractors until my shed gets built (even to the electrician who has nothing to do with his shed). Mr. Community has paid for all the work done so far, and the contractors tell him it’s a bad idea to do what he’s doing because building the house’s roof to protect it from the hail is more important, but Mr. Community thinks he needs to do this because, to him, it’s more important that his shed gets built so he can protect his motorbike than it is that the roof gets put on his house. It’s also the case that by doing this, it won’t get Mr. Community’s shed built any faster, because he’s just making electricians and plumbers sit on the sidelines while everyone waits for the shed-builders to get their work done.
Should Mr. Community be prevented from being able to make that decision? In my opinion, each contractor has the right to respond however they wish to the notice that funds are being withheld, they aren’t being forcibly controlled (but their time is being wasted, and they may exit), but Mr. Community should not be denied the right to take that action, as long as he has paid everything he currently owes to the contractors and has satisfied all of his contractual obligations.
But one other potential crux of this issue is that in the above thought experiment, I’m equating “ZIP being rejected” with Mr. Community not being able to take that option, which I think is how a lot of people have interpreted the ZIP being rejected. However, @nuttycom wrote the following, which suggests the opposite:
If polling found sufficient support for the rejected ZIP, then that could be sufficient cause to reopen the ZIP (though with my ZIP Editor hat on, it would still require modifications.)
So there are two cruxes as far as I can see (and please feel free to disagree, especially by pointing out ways my thought experiment doesn’t map on to this discussion!), which are (a) ZIP editors erroneously think that the proposal is unduly affecting the behavior of independent people within the Zcash community (rather than creating an incentive structure by withholding funding until a goal is met, even though that might be a bad incentive), and (b) others are erroneously thinking that the ZIP editors’ decision to reject the ZIP means that the community cannot elect to have the will conveyed by the ZIP (that it cannot be included in polling, etc.).
The best solution, in my opinion, is that even though it doesn’t meet the requirements to be accepted as a ZIP—and I defer to the ZIP editors’ interpretation of what that means—it can still be included as an option in community polling and coinholder voting (along with any necessary modifications to ZIP 0 or other ZIPs that would make it eligible for being a valid ZIP).
