Hm, reading this makes me realize that this proposal (@acityinohio’s) actually does require the construction of a third entity. However, it is a third entity with a relatively narrow scope of responsibilities.
And thinking about that makes me think of a potential issue in our voting system. Which is: “How shall we evaluate the votes for clusters of similar proposals?”
For example, you know how there are three different proposals that (although they have different rationales and different ideas for how to fund development) would result in no dev fund from the block reward: 1, 2, 3
Imagine if the voting were to come in something like 20% in favor if each of these three, 25% in favor of something completely different, and then the remaining 15% split among all the others? One interpretation is that the one with 25% is the winner, another is that more of the community (60%) wants have to have no block-reward-dev-fund.
This would be a harder judgement call if there were more differences between the proposals in the cluster. For example Aristarchus’s proposal and Gordon Mohr’s specify the same block rewards to the same recipients (10% to ECC, 10% to Zfnd), but one of them includes a mandate. What if Aristarchus’s got 25%, Gordon Mohr’s got 26%, and none of the other proposals got more than 15%? Then we would think that the dev fund split had about 51% support but Aristarchus’s mandate to invent on-chain voting had about only 25% support. 
And then it gets really tricky when you look at the cluster of “governing body” proposals: [ZIP 1006] Blocktown Development Fund Proposal: 10% to a 2-of-3 multisig with community involved Third Entity, Dev Fund Proposal: 5-Entity Strategic Council Approach, A Grand Compromise/Synthesis ZIP Proposal, Decentralizing the Dev Fee, Dev Fund Proposal: Dev Fund to ECC + Zfnd + Major Grants
There are five of them, they have had by far the most vigorous discussion, they have the most detail, and there are a variety of specific differences between them about the specific amounts of the funding, the number and composition and legal structure and scope-of-responsibility of the entities, and various mandates and policies that the entities are required to abide by.
Considering that there are five of them and they’ve had so much energy, I wouldn’t be surprised if we get voting results which indicate something like 12% for each of these five proposals, 20% for something entirely different, and small percentages for the rest. That would indicate that the community collectively (60%) prefers some kind of governing body construction, but they are split about the details. And of course some people will feel that the one that got 20% should be the real winner.
I kind of feel like—considering how vigorous the discussion was—that if we’d had a few more weeks before voting that the proponents of these proposals might have compromised on their differences and converged on one unified proposal. I think Arianna/Jacob/Autonomous, Antoinette Marie, and Chris/Mario/Placeholder already retracted their own ideas in order to support someone else’s proposal in this cluster (which means there were originally eight!), and I remember Josh Cincinnati writing that he preferred Matt Luongo’s over his own.
I don’t have a suggestion for how to handle this, but I was just realizing what an interesting setup we’ve got here with clusters. Here’s how I see the clusters. Curious if y’all see it the same way or differently.
No Dev fund: [ZIP 1001] Final: ZIP proposal Keep the block distribution as initally defined. 90% to miners, [ZIP 1002] FINAL: ZIP Proposal - Genuine Protocol opt-in/out donation feature updated 02/sept, [ZIP 1005] ZIP proposal: ZCFS (Zcash Community Funding System)
10%/10%: [ZIP 1003] Dev Fund Proposal: 20% split between the ECC and the Foundation, ZIP: "Keep It Simple, Zcashers (KISZ): 10% to ECC, 10% to ZFnd"
Governing body(ies): [ZIP 1006] Blocktown Development Fund Proposal: 10% to a 2-of-3 multisig with community involved Third Entity, Dev Fund Proposal: 5-Entity Strategic Council Approach, A Grand Compromise/Synthesis ZIP Proposal, Decentralizing the Dev Fee, Dev Fund Proposal: Dev Fund to ECC + Zfnd + Major Grants
Miner-directed: [ZIP 1004] Dev fund proposal: Miner Directed Dev Fund (was: 20% to any combination of ECC, Zfnd, Parity, or "burn")
Kek the can: Kek’s proposal: fund ECC for 2 more years
(Not counting the supplemental legal charter proposal, which is sort of an add-on rather than an independent proposal.)
I guess my main conclusion is that this really shows the wisdom in The Foundation’s plan that they’re going to deliberate and decide what they think is best instead of just being bound to the results of popular voting. And also the wisdom in having the votes be “Support/Accept/Reject” so that community members can signal they would accept proposals that aren’t their favorite.
Dear @acityinohio, @amiller, or other Zfnd decision-makers, how do you think about this issue of clusters?