I don’t think this it’s simple to do. Every Foundation says that’s what they do. But who gets to decide that they don’t?
And if we end up voting on everything, the Foundation will not have any room to operate.
Project teams will constantly be in funding mode and only projects with the most “appeal” will get funded. It’s gonna be a demagogy race.
Having a roster of proven people seems to discourage new comers and give the impression of nepotism. I’d rather have objective requirements.
For example, let’s consider a light wallet project. Here are some possible criteria:
- Accept ZIP-212 seeds
- Sync at a speed greater than X blocks / sec: covers initial sync and regular catchup
- Transparent and Shielded addresses derivation. Multiple addresses optional
- Must be able to make a payment in X secs (signing N notes)
- Must show unconfirmed incoming / outgoing transactions
- Wallets must support at least X transactions in history and Y outstand receiving notes. Reference wallet: zsviewXYZ.
It’s a starting point for negotiations. But once the final contract is written, neither party should be able to get out without compensation.
If the ZOMG does not have the resources to check, it could offer small bounties to testers to arbitrate disputes.