RE: Something Useful For Blockchain
In principle, I think it's a good thing. However, I would definitely want to avoid the format or even the user becoming a kind of "mouthpiece" for the SC. Rather, the summary of the discussion on specific topics and also the different points of view should come to the fore. As can be seen from comments already made, it is difficult to keep track of the discussion and filter out results. Especially when readers join in rather late.
It would also not have to remain with the topics already addressed here, but later current topics could also be taken up and discussed with the SC and other users.
If the SC is willing, I could also imagine a kind of short question round in which the witnesses could also be involved (if they want to be)... I'd better stop now, otherwise there will be more ideas...
I would like to comment briefly on the comments of the other users mentioned, so that this is not picked apart too much.
I think the organisation in a small team is already feasible. Each member can refer to a specific part of the discussion or a specific (future) topic and work that up accordingly as a draft for the others. Chriddi's dropbox suggestion is a good way to do this.
The references to important topics could come from the user team or the Steemit team. However, such posts should not appear too frequently.... maybe not more than once or twice a month, rather as needed.
From my point of view, it would also be important to ensure that the topics reach the users. In this respect, a new account would actually be rather detrimental, although independence from existing accounts would be very advantageous. As chriddi wrote, in this case resteems (also by the Steemit team) would be necessary.
Possible rewards should go directly to @null and/or completely serve the self-promotion of the new account and the posts.
There is a problem with witnesses. They cannot find a common language even among themselves. For example they excluded xpilar from their communication channel. Imagine they have to negotiate a hard fork. Mission impossible.
If this is really the case, we can forget some thoughts and suggestions from the beginning. Perhaps even the Steem, or at least its further development - including technical development.
For the implementation of some innovations a hardfork is necessary from time to time. And this is the responsibility of the witnesses. If those can't even agree with each other... Oh My... Attractive future prospects...
This is a very, very important point!
In the end, after all, it's the Witnesses who would have to implement something deeper ideas (e.g. hardfork, which the sc01 has already rejected as not wanted, but which is essential for some things (e.g. changing the start page from the Upvu-infested /trending to /promoted)).
Well, I'm curious to see if this will be anything at all with "us". Someone would have to get started - and not as a lone wolf... ;-)
Don't think this needs a hard fork...
Ah, okay. A "soft fork". Anyway, a developer who tinkers a bit with the homepage. This should indeed be only a small code. Do you have people like that on the team? Go ahead, try it out... ;-) Every visible change is a good sign! If necessary, you can undo the change.
It is on the list.