I have this in mind and my listing and hence i wrote
I made this listing of ECC affilated people due this argument which i think is not correct and somehow missleading if it doesn’t get corrected.
Beside that, who of these listed people has how much influence is out of our reach i guess. However, i think it’s safe to say that due their financial relation, be it the wage as an employee or shares of the founders reward as a founding member, at least suggests that they are way more affilated with the ECC than the foundation.
In my opinion it’s a valid opinion and question to ask if such “design” of the foundations governance panel is the right setup. Have in mind i did not make a conclusion, just raised the question!
From my (limited) knowledge it’s not common to have the same people in an organization which should act as a overviewieng, maybe even as a controlingl but for sure as a balancing counterpart.
And don’t let’s forget that there are several “claims/statements” by the proposal maker(s) in this thread that the Zcash Foundation is absolutly independent which in my opinion due the fully financial dependence and ECC affilated people in the Foundation’s decision making boards & panels is not the case.
Maybe true, but like everything in the world it’s a trade-off. I’am not going as far as making a conclusion if it’s good or bad, that’s not my intention. I just show that the fully independent claim is not correct at all.
That’s absolutly correct and until these days i admit it even doesn’t raised any concern on my end.
I even admit i have no idea who exactly decided who was able to join and who not than back.
Anyway. While the Foundation government panel and having several ECC affilated people in it wasn’t a problem in the past (or at least nobody gave it much attention) i think there is currently reasoning it could be a conflict of interest.
I can think of a lot of situations where this could create a lot of mistrust within the community for example. Which of course raises the question: Is this really ideal in case the foundation’s governance panel is used and ECC employees/founders/affilates vote on something again they anyway have allready decided internally at the ECC but now they vote in the name of the foundation?
As said, until now when such governance panel is used for, let’s call it 3rd party decision this might be ok, even wishfull in many cases. But when there are decisions to be made where the let’s call it “core foundation” has a totally different opinion, than this foundation governance panel is somehow “undermined”. Just some thoughts …
If i remember right the current panel is called " Zcash Foundation Community Governance Panel". Maybe a workshop would fit better for what you described as coming together and collaborate.
And just but not least i reviewed the last “Zcash Foundation Community Governance Panel” results which show that in some cases every vote is indeed important. As this example fits perfectly into the discussion here a figure:
