These are really 10 questions in the form of 5 points! 
But really, I think we should consider formalizing these as a standard application questionnaire for future ZOMG members!
Q: What do you think of the first ZOMG White Paper?
Putting out a white paper was a solid initiative to establish ZOMG and to help categorize the scope of incoming grants. I hope the upcoming ZOMG releases a 2.0 version with learnings from the previous year.
Q: What do you agree or disagree with?
I agree with the “What Success Looks Like” section, and disagree with the open-ended sphere of scope for use cases up for building. Although there were specific grant categories to be funded, I don’t believe all the members were on board with the timing to fund specific proposals. We need a well aligned approach to fund projects and tools that will make it easy for developers to extend cross-chain use cases along with support for Web2 & Web3(basically web apps with self ownership of data access & control).
Q: Is there any room for improvement? What major areas highlighted in the White Paper do you think remain to be worked on?
Lots, we need realistic 1 year, 2 year goals and then work the way backward to take initiatives today to provide an easier onboarding of developers and projects to bridge with Zcash protocol. It might be challenging to accomplish the streamlining of process within the limited 20hr a month time allocation, so ZOMG members will need to push above & beyond to further Zcash interests.
Also, there seemed to be a notion of grant approval based on dollar amount and not the expected ROI. The idea to create ZIP-1014 was to fund teams of developers, but there was primary interest in funding small sized proposals, which is understandable for the first cohort to prove quick wins. We need to evaluate the outcome of such proposals and ROI as well and structure the small grants in the form of well defined bounties & RFPs with proper post-delivery evaluation.
Q: What areas highlighted in the White Paper are being addressed in a strong way?
The “Impact Timeline” highlighting the long development lifecycles for larger, long-term projects. I’d be interested to learn about QEDIT’s roadmap & timeline and whether they need follow up funding after the initial version is delivered.
Q: Given we now have roughly a year of ZOMG existing, what things do you think went well versus not as well during ZOMG’s first year?
The diverse backgrounds of the members helped shape a well rounded functional body to execute the funding of projects which ECC or ZF couldn’t accommodate. The discourse on forums and delays to fund obvious grants were red flags. Early this year, we had a large grant funding reduced by ZOMG, to be subsequently rejected by the developer and later another dev team outright leave Zcash. Furthermore, since none of the members were initially ready to run again for ZOMG shows there are unsolved problems that could resurface with the next ZOMG. I hope ZF can help alleviate some of these concerns.
Q: ZOMG receives a variety of grant proposals ranging from cutting edge technology to simpler ideas such as social media marketing. What do you consider your strengths in evaluating proposals versus what areas will you have to rely on others to help to evaluate the proposals? Do you think you have a wide and informed enough network to rely on to help you evaluate the merits of a proposal that may be in a topic you are not well-versed in?
My personal growth with crypto over the last 10 years combined with my wide network and my ability to take advice qualifies me to evaluate proposals. Fortunately, we have access to the top minds in ZKP cryptography to take suggestions when evaluating proposals around cutting edge technology. As for social media marketing grants, the real question is are we ready for it? Do we have all round alignment on the message being sent out? Do we have KPIs to track and measure growth.(which can be very difficult when spreading the word on privacy based tech) Maybe we should give away Zcash hats? 
Q: In the event of a disagreement between the community’s view on a proposal versus the ZOMG committee, what path would you take to come to a decision? For example, if the community appears to be very enthusiastic about a proposal but the ZOMG is not leaning towards funding it, how would you reach a consensus to make a decision?
Zcash Dev Fund is a community fund after-all, the community enthusiasm must not be ignored or Zcash loses holders and future interest to build upon. We are directly competing against VC backed coins which are building like no tomorrow. Zcash has the advantage of being very strong at core ZKP cryptography, all we need to make it shine by increasing adoption which can come via novel ways from community interest. Reaching consensus is a challenge in itself, having well defined mission statement and funding goals should make it easier to convince members about the benefits of funding a proposal.
Q: What are some things off the top of your head you really think the Zcash community needs and that you, as a ZOMG committee member, will be keeping an eye out for?
Primarily making life easy for new developers to integrate ZEC by writing RFPs for stable, unit tested SDKs in popular languages like Python, Java, Golang, JavaScript, etc. Attracting builders from the outside Zcash to start building native ZEC bridges. And the following points from my candidacy post:
@David_Heisenberg let me know if you are up for attending Clubhouse in the next 24hrs to further expand on the questions and concerns, I’d love to co-host a room. If not, I will anyway be hosting rooms in the near future to connect with fellow Zcashers at Zcash - Clubhouse
I’ll wrap up my reply with a quote from St. Francis of Assisi - Start by doing what is necessary; then do what is possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible.