**Enforcement/Organization** I agree with your comments. I don't believe in setting up an organization to manage this process (would be too much power and not really needed because the internet is pretty good at information sharing). Therefore, I designed it around the assumption that participation is voluntary. This means that it's hard to enforce rules like forcing groups to see the other side. Groupthink/Echo chambers is real and is bad but it's hard to change human nature.
In regards to enforcement, I believe that the best approach would be to motivate committees to produce the best opinion they can (and also proof of stake, another weak point in this proposal), as the better they can do this the more likely the community will accept their opinion as valid and important.
Indeed, I believe that without an organization managing the process, it's up to each individual reader of each BIP/Opinions set to make the decision on whether or not there is clear and true community acceptance.
**Committee versus another approach**
Pros of using Committees:
* Committees are used today in many fields with a range of success. Lots of previous work to work off of here, history is established.
* Many segments already have committee-like structures (Merchants produce shared signed documents, miners often represent themselves, User groups have representatives like voting on subreddit moderators, Core Devs have Core Devs)
* Committees can filter a range of opinions down to a yes/no
* Committees have real people that can be talked to, contacted, etc.
* Much easier to proof stake in a range (People generally accept the Bitcoin Core has 70-90% of the market share) vs someone trying to proof they make up (.000001% of the Bitcoin user-base)
* Committees have some stability, encourages experience and expertise (Committee members can be knowledgeable in their area and adequately understand BIPs)
Cons:
* Fear of committees working in the dark, censoring opinions (i.e. "Dark smokey room of fat cats") (Possible solution: make committee power fluid i.e. easily abandon-able: miners can change pools, users can change client forks, change merchants, users can re-group, encourage transparency)
* More centralized, centralization of power (generally bad) (Possible solution: encourage smaller committees)
* Centralization pressure (groups may seek to consolidate to gain power) (Possible solution: Segmentation)
* Encourages groupthink, political maneuvers, turns good people into politicians, mud-tossing
**Another possible approach: micro votes**
Pros:
* Each user can represent themselves, no censorship
* People feel more involved and empowered
Cons:
* How to prove and prevent manipulation?
* Only motivated people will contribute. Motivated people may be motivated for bad reasons.