, and moreover in our case there’s enforcement via network upgrades and forking.
If a funded entity violates a “MUST” requirement of the agreed-upon ZIP, or violates a “SHOULD” requirement without adequate rationale, then this would be a very strong trigger for the rest of the community to stop that funding.
Added:
Think about it this way:
The community is the final ratifier and arbiter: it can always fork away and effectively stop any funding. But this requires coordinated action to execute, and also there are costs to worrying that it might happen out of the blue (e.g., funded entities can’t plan ahead).
So what we’re doing here is proactively coordinating this action. Forming a (non-binding but important) agreement among the broad community: “conduct within the boundaries of the ZIPs is fine and we’ll play along, but conduct contradicting the ZIPs is contentious and we would fork you away unless you convince us otherwise”.
Notably, this is true for the technical protocol ZIPs as much as for the Dev Fund ZIP!
Now obviously, it’s best to bolster things with additional mechanisms, to allow for faster action and reduce the coordination costs. This includes contractual arrangements such as the trademark agreement, as well as mechanisms such as the “restricted donation” clause of ZIP 1014, changes to operating agreements, etc. But let’s not confuse these with community’s ultimate power and authority.