I have yet to see a robust example of decentralized governance in terms of evaluating and funding proposals.
My impression of the Hive DHF has been that it is sub-optimal because it follows a "propose, decide, fund, execute" paradigm that is based on an inherently centralized way of doing things. I have my own thoughts about how to improve DHF decision-making, funding, and oversight -- I will be posting about that sometime soon (hopefully within the next couple weeks -- however, I've said that before, and it was more than 2 weeks ago).
I am not familiar with Archon governance -- but would like to know more.
In any event, my 'vote' in this instance is not a carte blanche vote for the proposal as-written, but rather a generic vote in support of the work @leprechaun has started (an open-source extension of the ecency front-end), in support of the community helping to fund the work (e.g. via @pob-fund), and in support of @leprechaun playing a significant role in overseeing (or doing) the work.
With that said, if H-E provides support (or is willing to provide support), that warrants some serious consideration as well. My guess is that the H-E support would be somewhat limited. However, if the H-E support can be synergistically leveraged with some of what @leprechaun is trying to accomplish, that would be great.
In summary, my vote is essentially to say "Yes" to front-end upgrades, "Yes" to spending something on the order of 3,000 POB for the first iteration of those upgrades, and "Yes" to @leprechaun taking a lead role in that, but all subject to direct oversight by @proofofbrainio (or your designee).
In other words, you (@proofofbrainio) should feel free (but not obligated) to move forward, and to do so only to the extent that you are comfortable with the scope of work, the compensation level, any stated milestones and deliverables, etc.