when you say governance decisions it makes me agree, they are fully capable to decide how the company moves forward (will it happen is another story). The stockholders would be pissed if witnesses collectively/individually lowered the standard of one to improve the other. This is a trust issue that must be addressed and if lost would be catastrophic for the witness.
My stupid analogy can be used against me. If you were to hire a groundskeeper and pay with company stock and said groundskeeper has made it known they also work for your competition, can you trust them to not do a crapy job to steer customers to the competition or work harder for whichever one has a better stock? My only reason so far for keeping my votes as is; the mentioned witnesses have proven track records with other witnesses positions at other sites already and I have no other reason to believe they will sacrifice one to make the other better when it is more profitable to keep both sites healthy. I noticed you are still voting for some witness's who also work for peerplays. So it is not about juggling work but more about the conflict of interest.
My view is
Witnesses are not exclusive contracts I see it as more concurrent in graphene territory. That being said with how profitable a witness position is, I expect the witnesses should start scaling up the witness "company" to maintain workload. AND you better not be highering some illegals. Oh, wait, no borders. Go team crypto!!!
@donkeypong you are making the right decision, you should be all-in for steemit and expect your governors to give the same. My stance is tainted by my small stake in steemit and an even smaller stake in EOS.