@Aggroaed, this is  awesome step. I carefully went through this https://hackmd.io/EzrGbFQdQ0yGRtrx4lGQ3w?edit# and it made a great sense. It's a well thought out plan for Steem's leadership. However, here are my suggestions while we still hope for the Feb. 2 meet:
1. Wouldn't you make a roll of viable communities on the Steem blockchain to send in delegates (3). May be, peg a minimum SP to be held by a community qualified to be represented in the Council. The SP, say, 50,000 is such that must have been held at least in the last 2 months. Sometimes, I had made [a call for community reorganization and harmonization on the Steem blockchain](https://steemit.com/community/@uyobong/a-call-for-community-reorganization-and-harmonization-of-operations-in-steemit-7601984fccb84est), if the blockchain must grow sustainably. WHere communities are well managed with regulated (not confined) operation options and  ranges, Steem leadership council would be viable.
2. On the tenure of the proposed Council, 2 years seems too long. There should be openings for periodical evaluation by the users at a shorter duration in order to help check excesses and power corruption.
3. There also should be measures to break the whale-plankton dichotomy which sometimes enhances user-abuse.