Well, I find the non-voting rather strange because obviously the blockchain needs maintenance and development. So yes, I understand there may be disagreements on the amount you're asking for, but since this proposal is so critical to the continuation of the blockchain, presumably there would be discussions on the price (if need be) so adjustments, if any, can happen and the necessary work can proceed.
I myself don't know how to estimate the proper amount when it comes to your proposal but I know the work scope covers some of the fundamentals for the blockchain's continuing operation so I voted for it.
I think if proposals are asking for too much, then competing offers that accomplish roughly the same work for less money will start showing up. The danger I see is if certain people get entrenched in their positions so they become irreplaceable. Antidotes to that would be transparency, more documentation, less barriers to entry, etc.