Thanks for the reply @bordumb - this is helpful!
Hmmm 
I do think I agree we want this, because we want the Committee to be the ultimate controlling body of what gets funded, exactly because of the conflict of interest with Grant recipients voting on where Grant money goes.
On the other hand, with this mechanism in place, it seems to me that a large part of the incentive for Grantees to evaluate other grants disappears (because their vote can get overruled anyway).
Thanks for reminding me this - I think it’s important to remember in the context of this discussion. How would that work with the multi-sig though? Can that happen with the existing multi-sig, or would it only be possible once some new funds are transferred to a new multi-sig wallet?
That aside, it is now starting to sound as if we are looking for a mechanism that helps control the Committee’s decisions. I am not sure if Grantees are the best group to help establish that control…
On the other hand, it just occurred to me that perhaps the idea to include feedback from Grantees is not for control of the Committee, but rather to incorporate broader or specialised feedback … If that is the case, should we perhaps be looking at broadening the Committee itself as a different approach?
I think I would personally be much more comfortable contributing to Radicle Grants funding decisions in such a capacity. As a committee member, I could also be “fired” if I am doing a poor job. As a Grantee, I am not sure how my vote could be “taken away” in the case my voting history proves poor (or “malicious” intent).