I am concerned that we're asked to vote "yes" on criteria that has not been approved or evidently decided yet.   Therefore, I am against this change.  Adding "criteria for participation" requires a third party to assess value for submissions, which takes time, adjudication, and picking winners and losers.  this adds time to the process, and greater costs which likely have to come out of the program itself.

has there been an outcry for this change?  I'd suggest that if current criteria for participation is in need of correction, then the application process should be evaluated and then changed.  the first-come, first-served method has the advantage of lower bureaucratic overhead.   And it appears to be working fine.

Even if the application process needs to change, the new process and weighing factors need to be presented for comment, rather than the open ended amendment currently proposed.

thank you for the opportunity to comment.