I enjoyed the languaging of your post and your clarity about our non-hierarchical relationship to each other in this decentralized governance environment we're in.
From my kind of organizational background, it seems to me that the process of doing hardforks has to be worked out first, and then the role definitions will follow after that. Defining roles without first defining the hardfork process would appear to be much more arbitrary (role definitions and scopes are based on what?) and probably subject to change right away, so the time spent on agreeing upon roles would be wasted.
If we take for example the process of creating a meal. The process is described in steps - we call it a recipe. When we have the recipe written down, we can delegate the various steps to this role or that role (if it's a pizza - someone prepares the dough, someone slices the tomatoes and mushrooms, someone puts the pizza in the furnace and takes it out when ready). We start with the process definition and then the roles follow from that.
I think that is what the first step has to be - what is our process for changing the Steem protocol? I suggested one possible process on @timcliff's post about his witness standards: https://steemit.com/witness-category/@timcliff/timcliff-s-witness-hardfork-approval-standards-v0-1#@borislavzlatanov/re-timcliff-timcliff-s-witness-hardfork-approval-standards-v0-1-20181009t174156887z
I would be curious to hear your thoughts.