MGRC getting a ZFND grant

[mistfpga]

Posting this as a CAP member.

@sarahjamielewis

Also, and I don’t like this but, SHOULD is not SHALL.

If you must to go down this road (please dont), then I would point you to these posts:

Major Grants committee

(Speaking for myself.) You seem to be saying that social mechanisms are insufficient; I disagree. Legal enforcement is only ever a backup mechanism that is used if social norms fail. But the backup comes at a very high cost.

Major Grants committee

, and moreover in our case there’s enforcement via network upgrades and forking. If a funded entity violates a “MUST” requirement of the agreed-upon ZIP, or violates a “SHOULD” requirement without adequate rationale, then this would be a very strong trigger for the rest of the community to stop that funding. Added: Think about it this way: The community is the final ratifier and arbiter: it can always fork away and effectively stop any funding. But this requires coordinated action …

You need a good reason. That good reason/support will be in a livestream or post on the forum.

You are looking for a post that contains something like “We excluded grants of finite length so the MGRC can give itself a MG” Or “The intent of the zip is for the MGRC to receive a MG”

because without that, the zip does not give a mechanism for the MGRC to fund itself, and we already have a process to fix this: the zip process I am happy to write the zip if you don’t want to. (look above in this thread, at my merged post and @daira comment on it) - you don’t need to try to find complicated alternatives that could very well violate the spirit of the zip to get this done. (they may not)

Realistically what is going to happen is the ZFND is going to decide on how this plays out, that is the intent of the zip, this is a strong reflection of the community sentiment.

Major Grants committee

(Speaking for myself.) I would support adding wording such as: ZF MAY compensate Major Grant Review Committee members for their time and reasonable expenses. (or “SHOULD”, if we decide that is definitely a good idea).

Is this really such a problem? What problem are you trying to solve? I think we will find the post/conversation @Autotunafish references when he says the MGRC should be treated as contractors. but the conversation will be there in one form or another. Please help look for it.