Yes, I agree and I like that sailing analogy
Development decisions can be too unwieldy if it were too open. I like the committee idea but they'll be a strong conflict between the reps to want the funds for their own projects, how about something simpler and fairer? You get a certain base % if your Steem platform makes the top X in terms of attention generated measured by rewards, and another pro rata amount based entirely on rewards. Eg, if the top 3 are Steemit, Busy, and Steepshot, and they pull in 80%, 15%, 5%, then everyone gets a certain base amount, and then another portion of the funds is allocated in a 80/15/5 split.
Far more efficient as it's automated and a lot fairer
Yeah, I'm sure some scheme can be developed to make it more of an automated process, less dependent on human decisions, and I know everyone will want to do this because that's what blockchains can do. Your idea for apportioning rewards based on attention measured by rewards is a good start I think, if people want to move in this direction.
But personally, I still trust the wisdom of humans to oversee dynamic systems, and emergent blockchain ecologies, including and not limited to apportioning resources. I feel that an over-reliance upon code will make us weak in the end. Blockchains don't need to completely remove trust, they need to minimize or remove the need for it where it matters most. At the end of the day, blockchains exists to serve human needs, and humans ought to be the caretakers of such systems.
Good discussion, I think we're way off into the speculative future now... but it's good. :)