The Foundation set the timeline for the Major Grant Review Committee based on the assumption that the community wanted grants funded as soon as the dev fund activates. ZIP-1014 doesn’t specify a date when the MGRC need be set up, but it seemed a reasonable goal for the benefit of the community to set it up in time for funds to be distributed immediately after NU4 activates. There are folks out there — like Zcash Developer Alliance-member company Thesis, who already submitted a proposal months before the MGRC timeline was even set — that are excited and motivated to do work on Zcash, and we thought it best to prioritize getting the committee set up and funds disbursed.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good; or more eloquently stated by you @zooko:
We could spend years debating the risks and designing improvements, but our “Perfectionism and Worry (PAW)” emotions will never be assuaged no matter how much we do that. We learn more in one month of trying something imperfect and risky than we would learn in years of debate and design.
However, if the ECC desires that in order to achieve a more perfect committee we ought to delay the timeline — and will veto any NU4 upgrade to Zcash that doesn’t include that delay — the Foundation will comply and adjust the timeline.
On two of your questions:
- What are the responsibilities and time commitments of the role?
- What is the compensation going to be?
These are great questions Zooko, and ones that the Foundation would also love to see answered in candidates’ platforms, as we stated in the original blog post announcing the timeline. Some may not have seen that post, which the Foundation made a month ago, but I’ll copy some of our recommendations here:
…we recommend that the MGRC iron out their process for initial grant selection by late August, in order to accept and evaluate applications in September/October prior to NU4 activation in November. How will this process look, what requirements will be made of prospective grantees, and how will the MGRC be evaluating and reporting on grant progress? We think it would be valuable for the MGRC to establish answers to all these questions, ideally in an informational or supplementary ZIP before they begin evaluating applications.
There remains an open question as to whether MGRC members should be compensated. As per other elements of the MGRC’s operation, we believe the initial MGRC can and should self-determine fair, market-based compensation taken from their share of the dev fund. They should understand that they will need to be very transparent about their decision publicly, or they will likely face pressure from the Foundation, ECC, and the broader community. Whatever they compensate themselves will not be available to the third-party developers from their slice, so they should consider their views on compensation carefully — ideally during the candidacy period. We’d also suggest that any ECC or ZF representatives that happen to serve on the committee voluntarily refuse such compensation in the interest of fairness.
On this question:
- Who else will they be serving alongside?
This is a democratically elected committee from the Community Advisory Panel, not an invite-only group chosen by a single body. Any candidate that chooses to put their hat in the ring should understand that given the restrictions imposed on them by ZIP-1014 they won’t be able to directly choose their other members. We don’t always get to choose our counterparties, and that’s a trade-off candidates should understand when running.
On your final question on one-year terms; if candidates work well together, their output will demonstrate it, and they should be re-elected. If they don’t, the Community Advisory Panel (or successor mechanism) would ostensibly replace them. Let’s not drown ourselves in Perfectionism and Worry; we shouldn’t try to create a perfect committee today. ZIP-1014 provides a checkpoint to evaluate and consider the MGRC’s performance on a yearly cadence, and it’s a wise decision by the community.
To be more explicit, this is a hard requirement of ZIP-1014 and the Foundation would not support modifying it, and we’d veto any attempt to change the 1-year term election requirement as part of our side of the 2-of-2 trademark agreement. The community decided on these terms after a long process and we intend to honor them.
Ultimately the ECC and ZF want the same thing — an independent, robust MGRC as crafted in ZIP-1014. @zooko’s view here:
(ICYMI, the ECC’s position is that the MG governance being independent is important for decentralization of power and for the stated purpose of drawing in new third-party developers to support Zcash, but that we’ll use our trademark rights and our zcashd source code to support a ZF-controlled third party if that is the community’s decision.)
Matches the Foundation’s perspective here:
How the MGRC will work…
…is up to the MGRC! It will be an independent body, able to set its own terms, except for the limitations and reporting requirements that were explicitly stated in ZIP-1014. We do have a few recommendations and open questions for the MGRC and the Zcash community to consider prior to their selection.
We look forward to running this election and will update the timeline post with the new timeline requested by the ECC.