ML, thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed and well thought-through post. Over the course of today, I have discussed it with the ZF board and with other members of ZOMG.
I remain firmly of the opinion that the ZOMG elections should go ahead as planned.
In saying that, I do not intend to belittle the concerns and issues that you and other ZOMG members have raised, both publicly and in private. Nor do I intend to stymie or prevent discussion about how ZOMG should evolve in the future.
As you know, we are addressing the operational issues that have been raised by hiring more staff, and increasing the expected time commitment, based on feedback from the current ZOMG Committee members (which will also result in a commensurate increase in the nominal compensation amount).
FYI, the current $500 per month nominal compensation is based the ZF’s original assumption of a five hours per month time commitment, at a rate of $100 USD per hour. This rate was based on the fair-market value of a non-technical executive at a non-profit with a yearly budget of $5 million USD a year (which doesn’t appear to have changed much since last August).
We’ve also come up with an idea to begin staggering elections to address the lack of continuity that results from the 100% turnover that can result when everyone’s terms expire at the same time.
With the new staff we’ve recruited, we will also have the bandwidth to begin working with ZOMG to address the problem of a lack of quality grants. Next week, we’ll be meeting with ECC to discuss how we can work together to address that.
And, just this evening, we’ve been discussing with other members of ZOMG how we could use RFPs and bounties to allow ZOMG to access and benefit from technical expertise that may not be otherwise available from ZF or ECC.
At the same time, I want to improve communications and interaction between ZOMG and ZF. It’s become clear that there have been miscommunications and misunderstandings that have led to us talking (or emailing) past one another, and caused resentment. I want to address that by talking more with ZOMG, and making you all feel more like part of ZF.
In short, we are working to make ZOMG work, as it is designed and described in ZIP 1014. I think it’s entirely reasonable to give the changes we’re making an opportunity to take effect. Based on informal conversations, the majority of the current ZOMG Committee feel the same way.
Therefore, we’re going to go ahead with the election, to ensure that ZOMG continues to function, and the changes we’re making have an opportunity to take effect.
Simultaneously, the discussion about whether and how ZOMG should evolve (including whether it should become an independent entity, become a DAO, spend its own funds, etc.) can continue, involving both the former and new ZOMG committee members, as well as other interested members of the Zcash community and ecosystem who want to contribute - i.e. the same constituency that took part in the governance process that resulted in ZIP 1014.
However, in the event that our efforts to make ZOMG work are unsuccessful (for whatever reason), we need an objective way to recognise and respond to that.
Therefore, if, after four months of the new Committee (i.e. mid-March), a majority of the new ZOMG Committee is of the opinion that insurmountable problems remain, we will consult ZCAP about changing ZIP 1014. Should that eventuality come to pass, the ongoing discussion should have produced enough viable ideas and proposals to be able to progress rapidly to a resolution (in the same way that we went from 13 proposals to ZIP 1014 during the Dev Fund process).