... latest reply ...
Miner intention voting like that has never worked out well in the past. Look at what happened with segwit 2x. That was a binary decision in which miners majorly supported it, but they didn't choose to act on it later.
A list is something more complex... The only think I can think of is if there exists a public list somewhere (maybe on multiple sites so that it's not centralised) on which anyone can contribute to about their development endeavours which relate to BCH. These lists will allow miners to asses the validity of the claim of being a dev (proof of identity by linking to twitter or reddit also needs to be included). Then miners put their own list of who they see as possible deserving candidates of a dev reward in the block that they mine.
Now, the protocol can be changed so that 12.5% (or whatever people end up agreeing on) has to be donated to any dev reward address that appears in at least, say 7 of the last 10, blocks mined (these numbers can be debated). The list could be capped to something like max 100 unique addresses initially to avoid bloating the chain with scope for upping that later. If there are no addresses that appear in at least 7 of the last 10 blocks mined, then the block is only accepted if the BCH is sent to a designated hardcoded burn address. This should prevent miners from paying themselves. It will also allow miners to contribute to who they like as long as that person is in the 7 of 10 list for the block they are mining.
If the miners cannot agree on worthy devs that last 7 of the last 10 blocks, then the supply curve for BCH is slightly reduced and the eventual number of coins will be less (as many will be burnt).
