We seem to be overlooking some key aspects of ZIP-1014 that define how the MGRC will operate. I’ll paste some here relevant to the discussion:
Major Grants awards are subject to approval by a five-seat Major Grant Review Committee. The Major Grant Review Committee SHALL be selected by the ZF’s Community Panel 10
The ZCAP is supposed to elect the MGRC members
Major Grant Review Committee members SHALL have a one-year term and MAY sit for reelection.
Every year.
The Major Grant Review Committee’s funding decisions will be final, requiring no approval from the ZF Board, but are subject to veto if the Foundation judges them to violate U.S. law or the ZF’s reporting requirements and other (current or future) obligations under U.S. IRS 501(c)(3).
I believe this section indicates that the MGRC is subject to the same 501(c)(3) restrictions/obligations as the Zcash Foundation.
ZF SHALL strive to define target metrics and key performance indicators, and the Major Grant Review Committee SHOULD utilize these in its funding decisions.
The Zcash Foundation will need to define “key performance indicators” that the MGRC should use.
For grant recipients, these conditions SHOULD be included in their contract with ZF, such that substantial violation, not promptly remedied, will cause forfeiture of their grant funds and their return to ZF.
Once the MGRC chooses who to award Grants to, the Grant Recipients must sign thier contract with the Zcash Foundation, not the MGRC.
So, with some pretty specific terms regarding MGRC in ZIP-1014 already ratified by the community voting process, the question becomes is there room to change them? If so, then who gets to decide which parts of ZIP-1014 the MGRC follows and which parts they get to ignore? Will we have to go through another community polling process with several different versions of ZIP-1014?
In my opinion ZIP-1014 is well defined and thoughtfully laid out and we should strive to make the MGRC as effective as possible within those constraints.