Seeing as you are about at the mo, can you please give the new proposal a sanity check to make sure I have got things in the right places (i.e. requirements and spec, etc) I would really appreciate it.
Thought I would ask on the simplest one before I post others. please and thank you
If you are about for a bit, I am about to post a whole lot more of them. 
I think it looks fine to submit. “Technical implementation” section can just be “No consensus changes needed.”
[In this comment, I am not speaking officially as ZIP Editor, or for ECC, but am speaking as an FR recipient.]
I’m confused by your comment, because the draft makes no such imposition on ECC, and I think a ZIP that purported to do that would be unlikely to be accepted.
The FR funding up to the first halving belongs to the FR recipients. Specifying what they (including me) can do with it is not within the scope of the ZIP process. The ZIP process can set goals that should be met with respect to the Zcash protocol and governance, and it can set constraints on what is done with new money associated with any dev fund if there is one, but it can’t purport to specify what ECC does with its existing money (including its share of the FR).
The FR, with its current distribution, ends at the first halving no matter what, and no-one has proposed otherwise.
It has been a while since I saw the initial FR setup. I will need to double check it, but I thought their was effectively (after investors) 3/4 groups who got some of the FR
1 - The ECC as a Company
2 - Individuals named as recipients (such as yourself)
3 - The foundation
4 - Employees receiving funds indirectly through the ECC’s portion.
All this is trying to do is address 1 and indirectly 4. I am now thinking I must be misremembering it, and it is structured differently. I will reread it and remove the additions. as they probably don’t fit and especially they would jeopardise the zip.
I think (i could be wrong of course) the following is more accurate:
Everything goes to the founders.
Than the founders “donate” to the ECC, Foundation, whomever.
A little help please. It seems I can no longer edit my initial post to reflect some changes - its is also making it cut n pasting into my md/bbcode to rst convertor a bit tricky.
The GitHub proposal is not going to be the same as this. I have removed quite a bit. can I get the ability to edit my posts back please? just for a day or two, or could I pastebin the contents of the new post and you can change it? idk. that seems a lot more work.
It looks like the post editing is restricted to a 2 month time period. We can bump this to be longer, until then @mistfpga feel free to copy/pasta it anywhere in this thread and I will update the OP for you.
I was able to test edit it, and it now shows orange pencil for me, can you edit now?
Thanks for the quick response. 
I can only edit the title.
it does help with my script though because yours is the only difference (however I am noticing lots of typos as I manually convert it, heh.)
I will rewrite them in rst, then make a bbcode convertor so you can just paste over the OP with it. A lot of the fixes are small grammar and spelling errors. Can you comment on my other proposal please. I should be fine for kek’s and lex’s, that cant have been 2 months ago.
From what I have worked out it is more like the ECC is a holding company, with the only obligation to distribute the FR to the recipients.
It is really confusing me the way the company is structured. so I am just following @daira’s advice and cutting all mention of it - takes a bit away from the proposal and “all in zec” but it is not right to say what people can and cant do with their money.
And effectively by saying the ECC must do something with the funds it has raised from the FR that is not directly paying the allotted amounts to the allotted addresses is directly interfering with someones money. I would have structured it how you outlined, and I thought that is what they did with the rebrand. I think I got it wrong tho.
It’s actually more than confusing in my opinion as the whole money flow is more than strange if you think more about it:
For both, the Foundation and the ECC i think it’s correct that the following describes it best in short:
=> Founders only distribute some % of the FR to the ECC, Foundation. The rest is for the founders from start.
=> ECC and Foundation than pays the very same founders again some compensation, wage, bonuses or whatever it’s called. I have no idea how much this is as there seems to be no disclose or transparency.
=> Additionally it seems that some (or all?) founders are as well share sholders in the ECC. This might apply as well to some (many/all?) employees. Without disclose it’s again not clear if there are bonuses or interest paid to share holders.
Again, i could be wrong, but that’s what i get out how the founder parts are “implented” in the money/ZEC flow. Without more transparency and clarification it’s hard to say if this is 100% true or if i’am missing something. And don’t expect transparency or answers here, that’s not a point that seems to get included into transparency, but more a hot potatao that is avoided to be touched at all costs for whatever reason.
Pull request done
@daira does this remove the right parts that you thought to be contentious? Thanks.
Can someone from the ECC please comment if the second round of reviews were done on the Initial post in this thread or from the GitHub pull requests. They are not the same proposal, I could not update the OP with the GitHub
All this does is stop the FR. which is going to happen. The GitHub version is a lot more trimmed down and has a lot of contentious points removed. However this one still remains and may be seen as part of the problem?
This is badly worded. It does state later that protocol based donations are possible. The spirit also changed.
Thanks.