ShieldOrder:
ZCG is a fiduciary body, not a gatekeeper. The community sets direction through proposals, forum discussion, and ZIP processes. My role is to surface tradeoffs clearly, enforce consistent standards, and protect long horizon funds for measurable user benefit.
Process is one form of legitimacy, but I think ZCG should be (as they are now) capital allocators that have real latitude and autonomy in decision making. Informal norms already exist and those are effective.
I like a lot of the buzzwords you use, but does ZCG really need more technocracy? A lot of written standards, process, and bureaucracy tends to negatively effect Performance. The aim should be to attract and elect high quality high performing people.
Now committee members are fairly compensated for their time (USD fixed base amount + 10 ZEC per month) so their self interest will help their decision making. If they allocate successfully over their year term, the ZEC token price rises. If not, the token goes down in value.
This will attract high quality high performing people. Such people don’t need a lot of process and bureaucracy.