No, I think you didn’t miss anything. Given the history and current funding of these institutional structures it is not surprising that there is some entanglement and dependencies. But at the same time, the ECC and the ZF are already separate legal entities, each with its own raison d’être, staffed with different individuals, and do not seem to have identical positions on every aspect of the question at hand. On paper, I’d say that’s a meaningful starting point.
How does the 2-of-2 multisig fit into the aspirations of ZF independence and balancing the disproportionate power of the ECC? By definition, 2-of-2 means that both parties have to come to an agreement before a decision can be realized. Obviously, this requires dialogue and collaboration, and whenever there’s fundamental disagreement, something has to give for things to move forward.
Besides trademark-related decisions, what else could fall under this mechanism? Our proposal suggests that it could also include decisions around protocol development funding which should be informed by community feedback on past progress and future plans, including via non-binding polls/votes. Based on public statements about the role and principles of the ZF, a non-profit organization operating under a duty of care, I would expect them to shy away from confirming decisions with considerable opposition within the community.
All in all, if we want Zcash to be more decentralized, this feels like a step in the right direction.