I think each of the BOINC users have their own motivation to participate in one project or not, that’s why there is an ample variety of BOINC projects in the first place. There for the GRIDCOIN community will and shall never agree on rules how to whitelist projects on “scientific” merits of a project.

Some of the projects you list do not have any “scientific” value to me, but in some I am participating because they guaranty a steady workflow and/or have a nice community.

Out of the last two whitelist process we should draw other lessons, and establish simpler, basic rules on technical and ethical criterias:
SOURCEFINDER: Did not have the back-end to support the demand of work after being whitelisted, this distorted the “profitability” of the other projects and the community.
ODLK or ODLK: a complete disaster! Your self have written an article about double projects with the same aim. The title of the poll was:” Poll: Whitelist Poll: Odlk Round #2” and the correspond ending question: “ODLK now has an English page and is SSL. Are we ready to add it to our whitelist?” And quess what, which Project get’s whitelisted? ODLK1, the question was never ODLK1 it was ODLK. So a few have benefited heavily from a head start.

If we are not able to prevent such “technical and ethical” shortcomings first, how will be able to judge “scientific” merit of a project to white list? The GRIDCOIN community or at least some of its users are already optimizing their profits, whitelisting small projects with dubious or no track record at all, to get the first mover advantage, on the back of users supporting old, big projects, like SETI, PRIMEGRID, CLIMATEPREDICTION to name a few.