@joshs Was there specific ask or question that you were expecting a response to?
I can provide some general thoughts (but bear in mind that I’m not speaking on behalf of the ZF board here).
For reference, this is the relevant sentence of Josh’s draft ZIP (now withdrawn):
For the duration of this extension the ECC, ZF, BP, SHALL coordinate and cooperate together to establish a non-direct funding model that will supersede this ZIP no later than the expiration of the one-year extension period.
The meaning of establish is “to institute (something, such as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement”.
Per BCP 14, “SHALL” means “mean that the definition is an absolute requirement”.
That may be but, as drafted, the sentence can be interpreted as imposing an absolute requirement on ECC, ZF and BP to “establish a non-direct funding model”, which is something ZF cannot agree to do without the details being worked out.
By contrast, we have no problem with the language that @aquietinvestor has proposed in his Hybrid Deferred Dev Fund ZIP:
As such, ECC and ZF MUST collaborate with the Zcash community to research and explore the establishment of a non-direct funding model. The research should consider potential designs as well as possible legal and regulatory risks.
I think it’s clear from the ZF Board’s statement that we have no problem collaborating to research and explore the establishment of a non-direct funding model, so long as we are not committing to actually establishing such a model before the details are finalised and any attendant risks are understood.
@joshs Given that ECC is endorsing @aquietinvestor’s Hybrid Deferred Dev Fund ZIP, it appears that the language I quoted above from @aquietinvestor’s ZIP (“As such … regulatory risks.”) satisfies your requirement for a mandate to explore a non-direct funding model.
If that language were added to the Dev Fund for ECC, ZF and Zcash Community Grants draft ZIP, would you be willing to accept direct funding under that ZIP?