What I actually said (in November during the initial formation of the committee) was:
(On that note, the only “official” communication from the MGRC for the foreseeable future will be through meeting minutes and committee votes).
The ZOMG is a committee formed of 5 members, and the only offical mechanism that exists for us to provide official comment is committee votes.
That being said, in recent weeks we have sought input/feedback from the community in a number of areas e.g.
ZOMG: Should it be proactive in finding grantees?: ZOMG: Should it be proactive in finding grantees?
Request for Input Securing the Zcash Ecosystem: Request for Input: Securing the Zcash Ecosystem
We have also directly responded to people who have reached out via the forum e.g. Suggestion: MGRC liaison in community dev calls - #4 by holmesworcester
On the point of ethics, given that ZOMG has now been officially clarified to be a committee under the governance of the Zcash Foundation (https://www.zfnd.org/about/incorporation-docs/2020-12-01-bylaws-amendment-3/) we inherent all policies that govern the ZF.
As a committee I believe there is appetite for expanding the scope of those policies, but given that we are not a full time committee, discussions on that scope have taken second chair to discussing grant applications (something that the community was quite vocal about us prioritizing).