Great questions @tm3k and @sarahjamielewis
I like the idea of putting together a standardized list that all candidates can answer prior to the vote. For the sake of efficiency, perhaps it would be helpful to split it in two:
- Core questions (need maximum clarity asap, so all candidates should provide concrete answers prior to the vote; this way ZCAP members can reasonably guess what the most fundamental MGRC policies and procedures are likely to be if their preferred candidates get elected and are thus involved in the initial setup process). Opinions may differ here but I would personally keep this relatively short and include (at minimum) the following topics:
-
Views on compensation and willingness/ability to commit full time. (My personal opinion is that the first patch should include at least a few people who can work full time, if needed, even though I don’t think it’s rational to start out with 5 full time positions. In such matters, it’s always easier to add than remove.)
-
Views on conflicts of interest, i.e. who should be excluded from the MGRC, or who should abstain from voting and when. I agree with @daira that the basics are already specified in ZIP 1014 but I think the issue is important enough to have each candidate clarify their position.
-
Key principles/priorities/competencies when it comes to the core purpose of the MGRC (this one is a bit more open-ended, allowing each candidate to highlight what they plan to emphasize and focus on, whether they think the formal list of MGRC responsibilities should be minimal vs. long/detailed, what expertise they personally bring to the table, etc.). Including this among the core questions would help in making sure the initial membership provides a good balance between technical, organizational/administrative, and financial expertise, covering both Zcash-specific but also broader but still relevant areas/topics.
- Everything else, incl. operational details that need to be ironed out by the initial MGRC members and are likely to change over time. Here, I would even include things like the size of compensation and reporting requirements. Starting out with 1-year terms (with the option of re-electing existing members) would allow for revising all of it based on experience. If individual candidates feel strongly about any of these issues, they can emphasize it in their answer to the third question above but figuring out the exact final details would still be a task for the whole MGRC.
The purpose of the above distinction would be to ensure that the most important questions get the necessary attention from all ZCAP members, many of whom may not have the time to dig into all the minor (although still important) details that I hope we can trust the initial 5 MGRC members to figure out in a responsible manner once they start working together. Whatever they come up with, if the broader community is not happy with the result, it will be possible to correct/change things in a year from now.
(EDIT: many great answers are already sprinkled throughout this and individual candidate threads, but the main reason to create a standardized list would be to make it easier for everyone to compare individual positions/perspectives. If someone is already working on a different approach/system to coordinate the final stretch here, then these suggestions can simply be ignored.)
With regard to growing the ZCAP membership prior to the vote. I feel like this topic is more important to some than others, and coordinating the MGRC election process should definitely be prioritized at this point, but… If there are longtime community members that really want to join, they are endorsed by an existing ZCAP member, and no one objects, perhaps it’s not such a big deal to just include them?