@avichal, you raise valid concerns and interesting ideas, but the ship has sailed. As @Shawn says above, the previous sentiment collection round has clearly indicated a preference for not creating a new, completely independent third entity.
Still, I would like to briefly reply to your new idea:
Let me break that down into the three parts:
decentralize
Zcash Foundation’s values state:
Decentralization. We will strive to make the Zcash protocol and network decentralized, avoiding the placement of trust or granting of capabilities to any single party (assigned or emergent). Whenever current technology does not achieve perfect decentralization, we will seek to minimize, monitor and mitigate centralization.
I believe ZF has been consistently and diligently acting in accordance with this.
whose sole purpose
Achieving this purpose requires infrastructure and expertise, which are very difficult to attain and maintain. ZF already has these, towards the same ends (see above). True, ZF has recognized that some of the decentralization goals (e.g., developing an independent Zcash node) are best achieved in-house, and it wasn’t for lack of trying to achieve this externally (e.g., by a contract with an external developer, Parity). Evidently, this kind of flexibility to do some work- in-house, and the technical cognizance that comes with it, are necessary.
and eventually itself dissolve
That would be setting up for failure. Recall the Shirky Principle: Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.