Great questions, @Mikerah ! Answers from me and @cburniske below.
We’re comfortable with most of the communication and collaboration tools that have been mentioned in this thread, but prefer to use the more battle tested ones, and specifically would ask that we not use Telegram for instant messaging (Signal or Slack preferred).
Echoing much of what’s been highlighted already but a few things we think are essential: treating others with respect and empathy, clarity on objectives and responsibilities, open lines of communication, a collaborative and constructive attitude (incl. the ability to express and defend ideas, but also to listen and take criticism/feedback), and a propensity towards converting ideas into concrete action. We also think it’s good to have an operational/administrative leader who keeps things moving while making sure everyone’s ideas receive the necessary attention from the group as a whole.
The most relevant experience here comes from our day to day work with Placeholder portfolio networks and companies, where we can control the diligence process for making an investment, but can’t control how each team/community member of a network will behave over time. When you layer in changes in leadership and other roles over the typical investment-lifespan of many years, we are arbitrarily put together with people all the time.
Regardless of the arbitrariness of the group, our goal is to operate as a benevolent contributor or mediator, depending on what the times call for. In times of friction, mediation. In more frictionless times, we serve as a constructive, thoughtful, anticipatory resource. We’re happy to assert an opinion, but also believe in allowing communities to find their own path over time without too much institutional influence.
We would focus on processes that support the actions described in our second answer. Most importantly, we’d suggest establishing basic administrative functions and accountability (first and foremost, deciding whether this role is filled by members of the MGRC or outsourced to a professional admin/manager), core objectives and responsibilities of the MGRC, a strategic work plan for the first term, and basic tools and standards of communication (incl. with ZF, ECC, and the Zcash community at large). We also think that an important initial focus should be to establish clarity on things like compensation, how the MGRC interacts with applicants/recipients throughout the grant life cycle (incl. sourcing applications and handling progress reports), how funding decisions are made and communicated, and what types of funding decisions are possible (grants, prizes, investments, etc); in short, everything relating to the core functions of the MGRC.
As far as disagreements on MGRC policies or specific grants go, our ideal is open debate and discussion, ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to present their views in a welcoming environment. For deeper and/or more personal conflicts, everything starts with calm and respectful 1-on-1 communication without either party forcing their preferred form of communication or approach to resolution on others (i.e. being open to alternative paths forward, active listening, etc.). We think it’s unlikely that two or more MGRC members will find themselves in a situation where they’re unable to resolve a personal conflict on their own. But if it were to happen, getting someone to mediate the conversation would be our recommended next step. If the parties involved consider us sufficiently neutral, we would also be happy to serve that role.