A good start

[ScottChamberlain]

In general, this all makes reasonable sense, with three caveats, each related.

To What End?: First, this proposal lacks a statement of purpose and powers. This should come first, before you design the vehicle to carry out that purpose. The XRPL has always lacked an independent “champion of the chain” that other communities have had. The XRPL Foundation has never functioned in this way. It should and that list of purposes and goals - the vision - should be in here somewhere.

With What Resources?: Second, and related to the first, any entity needs funding to enable its activities. Other communities have an entity resourced to be the independent champion. The XRPL ecosystem is 100% reliant on Ripple. It is the only entity with funds and the sole source of all funds within the ecosystem. Whatever it is, if it’s XRPL -related & Ripple stops funding it, it dies. The revised Foundation needs to have a business model that solves that problem.

Armed With What Clout?: Finally, it would help if the list of things the Foundation managed included the canonical code base. At present, Ripple controls what code gets merged and voted on by validators. In a code base that has no composability, where every innovation has to be agreed by everyone, it doesn’t make sense for a single large actor - instead of a revitalised Foundation - to control which innovations the validators are allowed to have a view on.

So, by all means, change the membership criteria and charge membership fees. All worthy innovations. But first agree the purpose, powers, and business model for the vision the members are joining up to support.

[SirJosh1987]

Please tell me this isn’t for me.