First of all, thanks @calurduran for taking on this RPIP! I think everyone is excited to create a grant program to accelerate the RP ecosystem’s development. I hope you make it through the storm ok!
Re: the RPIP, I would vote for it as is, but I’ll leave some feedback below from my POV as a community member.
I agree with this in the sense that the burden of defending a proposed budget should be on the grantee. That said, I expect grants to include significant conversation between the GMC and the grantee, so this may not be necessary to codify.
In general, I’m in favor of keeping governance structures as close to resembling the code as possible. In this case, that means the GMC has the power to distribute the funds as they see fit, and comparatively weak social conventions like “grant applications must have XYZ” can be source of conflict. Therefore, I prefer grant requirements are left up to the GMC rather than chiseled into the metaphorical stone of the charter. Accordingly, I also prefer not to set grant levels in advance with this charter.
If these are things the GMC wants to do, it already has the power to do so, and I only see codifying these things into the charter as a way of setting community expectations, though perhaps that’s enough of a reason to do so in the end.
On another subject, I also think it’s prudent to consider compensation (~15 RPL/mo?) for the participants in any committee (IMC included, but let’s discuss that elsewhere) – otherwise we will inevitably have absent/ignorant participants. I think this is best to do as part of the initial charter + budget for the GMC if possible.
Compensation also allows us to expect a minimum level of time commitment, which is helpful for candidates to know in advance. For example, I would like to serve on the GMC, but I’d prefer to know expectations in advance since I already have a lot of other responsibilities.