Thanks for the responses - some good points, and I'd like to respond to some of them:
1) You're into libertarian semantics when parsing terms like "group" or "committee". Nobody in the real world cares about this. Besides, if they do a bad job they will be fired (de-funded).
1. I don't care much either about the terms. How about multiple groups? Multiple committees? That's the main point that I was agreeing with in my comment - having more diverse views and analyses, as opposed to the "officially funded evaluation." Of course, I'd prefer to have no committees than any committees. But if we're going to fund one, I'd rather have multiple viewpoints. Multiple groups could still lead to the problem of group-think/failure, just less likely than one... Or, do you think one committee would be less likely to have problems since it can be fired? I'm open, willing to change my mind, and still considering this.
2) MNOs don't have to vote in accordance with the recommendations of the PEC. Most people in this space that I know have a brain and critical-thinking ability. If you disagree with the PEC, write a comment in the comments section, or vote to fire them.
2. Ok, so then what is the PEC's role, if MNO's don't vote with their recommendation? If you have critical-thinking ability, then why not use that to analyze the proposal itself instead of needing to analyze the analysis? If it's "easier" to analyze the analysis than analyzing the proposal itself, then that's where I see voting being distorted, because MNO's will (more easily) depend on the subjective analysis of the PEC. One problem then is that those disagreeing with the PEC will have to put in volunteer time to argue against the funded PEC. They're doing the analysis too, coming to a different conclusion, but not getting paid. You seem to be saying that most of the time MNO's can just go with the recommendation except in special cases where the PEC is very wrong, or even slightly wrong - then MNO's can take over so there's a failsafe and it's okay in most cases, is that right?
3) If PEC were to take your advice about "helping proposers come up witih better ways...", what would we have? Paid professionals doing the proposers work (think parents doing child's homework), obfuscating the true abilities and qualities that may be lacking in the proposer's efforts or skill set. This type of meddling is exactly what you seem to want to avoid, and this idea would result in exactly the opposite of your intended function, much like the government agencies you criticized.
3. I took some time to think about this, and for the most part I agree with you. Maybe we shouldn't have a "proposal assistance committee" (PAC) at all. My reasoning for supporting a "PAC" was that the volunteers working for the PEC have been eager to contribute, and it seems like their skills could be useful in helping proposers. Ideally, we wouldn't need it at all. But, if they wanted to do something to get paid by the Dash Budget, I would rather have "assisters" than "evaluators" - though I'm not sure if the transfer of skills is compatible (maybe a different group of people would be better for the job)... would evaluators be able to only assist without doing all the work (or covering up a proposer's deficiencies)? My hope is that helping proposers get started wouldn't necessarily be like parents doing a child's homework. Proposal-submitting often requires a different skill-set than proposal-carrying-out, and generally I would be okay with approving someone who had poor proposal-submitting skills, but excellent skills in carrying out whatever proposal (depending on proposal type). Besides, if the "assisters" were tempted to do all the work (or cover up a proposer's deficiencies), what makes them not tempted to evaluate with bias?
Anyway, generally I'm supportive of "subsidizing the infant industry" to get it off the ground - once more and more in the community learn how to submit proposals well, then we won't need to fund someone to hand-hold beginners through the hurdles of submitting. But again, I do agree that there's a potential problem that meddling would result in the opposite of the intended function.
I agree that something(s) should be done to improve the proposal system, and I see the potential value in having a smaller paid group do the work of investigating proposals more in-depth... However, it's difficult for me to reconcile that with one of the reasons why I got into this space - it is open, borderless, decentralized, neutral, censorship-resistant, and allows permission-less innovation where anyone can participate. The MN system allows a decentralized system of governance, and I believe a small group like the PEC would narrow that unhealthily. For the "wisdom of crowds" to make good decisions, diversity (of participants and opinion) is so important. Instead of "anyone can participate," it starts to turn into "anyone can participate that the PEC likes"
A better solution, I think, would be a more automated (more objective) system that presents better information to MNO's. Something more like Google Trends, where the data is presented objectively in a way that is easily seen (as opposed to Consumer Reports where the reviews are in-depth, but have more potential for bias).
.