I strongly agree, and I think that under the circumstances, interim funding + prompt questions was the responsible thing to do.
Still, I wonder if other models are possible in the longer term, where funding is approved for a long duration, and considerable leeway is granted, and yet there is an ongoing process for review, feedback, and if things go awry, aborting.
ZF’s grant to @oxarbitrage is great example. After an initial review, discussion and adjustments, @oxarbitrage essentially got a free rein to set goals and tasks within a very wide mandate. He kept the community and ZF updated, incorporated ideas, handled criticisms, and in my opinion is doing a spectacular job. ZF approves the monthly goals, usually with little trouble, and this watchful eye also serves as additional perspective to bounce ideas off and access more expertise.
@oxarbitrage, is this a fair description from your perspective?