Could I maybe suggest that the people presenting proposals that concern the community in a way that it directly affects topics of concern for the community, i.e. voting as one example, be presented and explained in ways for the voters can understand.
If a voter does not understand something, then that voter shouldn't vote on it.
That is another item, in fact the voter should ask questions about it, so that the person(s) submitting the proposal can answer appropriately.
No need for "committees", added administration and red tape are things that the real world can keep for itself, we can do this without all the headaches and obstacles.
Simple straight forwards responsibility and understanding along with direct participation from all parties involved should bring about a practice that is effective and constructive.
Hi Jack, thanks for the reply.
100% agree with that.
No need to look at it as "added administration and red tape". With the decentralization and freedom come added responsibility for each and every member of the Hive community. The Committee doesn't have to be very formal, wrapped in red tape. It could be an informal group of Hiveians who have the skillset and experience in a given area such as blockchain tech, marketing or cost-benefit evaluation. Whenever there is a proposal, they can come out and make a comment on the proposal to help other Hiveians to make an informed decision.
I must point out that delegation to a committee is already the status quo on Hive: consensus witnesses. It is a notorious feature of institutions that they inevitably increase their power, and we see this ubiquitously IRL governance globally today. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy is no hypothesis. It is proven fact.
Inevitably accompanying bureaucracy is corruption. The less of that the better, and no better example could be found than the infestation of vote bots that once deranged Steem.
I vehemently oppose formation of such a committee presently.