Agree with OP, Jane's mechanism here probably better for existing mechanics and FD's Ethos of the game.
Schlack is about as "AEDC Official" as you can get.
Here's Jame's input for the record.
As you can guess we would be right up for it in - though we'd not be in favour of anything that required a judgement call by any individual. We'd much prefer a situation where you need to be allied, and perhaps allied for a considerable time to a faction to pledge to it and there to be a strict limit on the number of factions you can pledge to.
I've highlited the thing I feel strongly about.
The thing I have greatest disagreement with Viktor B about.
The thing I keep banging on about.
Disclosure: I am a mid ranked veteran in a well established, large and prestigious Player Group. Not one of the clever people upstairs. Mid-Ranked.
I also take a strong interest in ALL the player groups. Their history. Their lore. Their members. Their activity.
I have two examples of the problems of gating in-game membership by group leaders.
1) 160th SOAR. This is a Player Group started by a CMDR before he understood his own preferences. He created it on INARA got a few buddies in and ticked the box marked "Alliance" for faction. Because "not Federation and not Empire". But then he joined Achenar Immortals and ranked up there. In fact he became senior. An officer. BGS Strategist and PvP team leader. For the Achenar Immortals.
Now when Frontier needed an Alliance player group to host the two CGs that built the Alliance research bases out in the California Nebula. They didn't chose one of the big names in the Alliance (AOS or AEDC and so on) they decided to chose a relatively unknown group. And 160th SOAR are on the top of any Alpha Numeric sort list. 160th SOAR saw a spike in recruits with each CG. And as far as the recruits knew they were joining an "Alliance" faction.
So here we see a demonstration of some of the problems for Frontier in granting more tools for in game PMF membership management. Who should be the gatekeeper for 160th SOAR membership? That CMDR is only occasionally interested in his little side project. Maybe he'll shelve it.
Okay it could work for the sixty odd uh "groups of significance" but trying to follow who is really what for the three hundred odd Player Minor Factions. Impossible. Throw into the mix groups like the Diamond Frogs who do great things with manipulating Public Relations and the smoke and mirrors of appearances. Using a truth to hide a lie.
Suddenly I find myself seeing similarities in the setups of Winged Hussars and EDF even though I only respect one. Their hierarchy and structures are similar.
2) Secondly (and I repeat this a bit) the tools you provide in-game sort of dictate the types groups that exist and what those groups can do - what their purpose is.
Compare:
Fuel Rats
SDC
CANNON
Winged Hussars
SEPP
Diamond Frogs
Adle's Armada
Sirius Inc
Sirius Gov
Communism Interstellar
AEDC
AOS
Dark Armada
EGP
Bacon Cats
Some of those have a language gate. There's no point joining EGP unless you говорит по-русски . Some of those have no need of tags. Some have no need of secure comms channels. Some are completely opaque to Frontier. Some are completely open.
Whatever systems Frontier bring in-game, we (the players) will find ways to abuse or min / max them.
I dont want to say "Frontier should not give us faction tools".
But I don't think the EDF / Winged Hussars shopping list of centralized hierarchical tools are the right ones.
So what DO I advocate?
Voice and visibility.
Visibility - you should be able to pledge to a Minor Faction that you are Allied with. It should not have to be a Player Minor Faction. You should not have to "apply to the group" just get allied and pledge.
Voice - every PMF has designated respondents who are known to Frontier. They should have direct write access to the news feeds at systems their faction rules.
Both these things are open to abuse.
But both these things will give the serious groups the right sence of ownership and belonging.
As much as I respect the voices of group leaders calling for "ownership" here's a voice from the rank and file calling for "belonging".