certainly not a huge amount of resources. Its been done a few times already and it was the right move. The only acceptable response to ASIC for a project like ZEN is a fork and anything else is a coward move/decision.
I dont even understand why the fork isnt already announced.

For large decisions that can have significant effects, I like to do a worst case/best case exercise. Identify the worst outcome of a decision, and balance it against the best case of the decision. It helps to actually quantify things in doing this as well.

Furthermore, part of this decision should be reviewing what the goals of the ZenCash project are and how the decisions to be made are consistent with the goals.

There are people making hardware purchasing decisions about this, and if too much of the entrenched hashrate comes from miners running ZenCash ASIC's then over time there will be a group of people wanting to maintain that hashrate. Making a decision on the direction to go is something that should be made withing a reasonable time period.

Choices under discussion so far that I have seen:

Do not change ZenCash Equihash algorithm
Modify the ZenCash Equihash algorithm to require more memory by changing parameters
Change the ZenCash algorithm to a different one already in use
Change the ZenCash algorithm to a completely new one
One of the things I have noticed as a cryptocurrency miner is that the cryptocurrency that is the first to have a new algorithm in many cases becomes the lead of that mining class. It may be because the ones that have their own algorithms also have developers that continue to create and improve the cryptocurrency, so it may be more due to the long term effect of active developers, and the same effect could be obtained by continued active development on the project.