This is a good starting point. I have a few other general questions on the MGRC process outside of simply determining funding status:
- Should MGRC members get involved with shaping the outcomes and reporting of individual grants? e.g. I recently spend some time advising Zbay on both their grant timelines and their ethical review - I think that such work should form a core part of the MGRC (but that obviously requires time and effort).
- Relatedly, to what extent should the MGRC shepherd projects v.s. making firm accept/reject decisions.
- Should the MGRC adopt other requirements and policies around reporting, ethical review, security engagements (etc.) as part of the grant process?
- Should the MGRC require budgets and restrict funds to the stated purpose (as is common in grant funding)?
- If so, to what extent should the committee be available to respond to requests for changes in scope and other budget reallocations?
- If not, how will the committee ensure that funds are being awarded effectively?
- Should the MGRC consider funding in tranches?
- If so, on what timelines should the MGRC review and approve additional funding?
- If not, on what timelines should the MGRC approve funding without additional review?
I will also add a few higher level questions I outlined in another thread regarding conflict of interest policies:
- What qualifies as a conflict of interest, including what relationships might appear as conflicts of interest?
- What standards should there be for disclosing a conflict of interest - both upfront and during governing activities?
- How conflicts of interest are reported , to what extent are they available to other governing members or to the wider community?
- What consequences should there be for violating the policy or withholding such information from other committee members?