Thanks for your review and your valuable remarks. I'd like to comment by giving some answers and focussing on one fundamental difference between the "classical" foundation proposals and DeCentraSteem.

We weren't aware, the definition of "Steemian" could be something needing clarification. Within DeCentraSteem a Steemian is an identifiable person. Thus, you need five persons to set up a working circle, five persons to ask it to stop and if there is a vote head-count is applied. Why that?
The purpose is "strengthening communities". To do so, engagement of of a large number of community members is needed. While stake-based vote has its reasons for security of the blockchain, it seems to be the wrong choice to grow communities because communities are much more something like a village than a company.

Applying this, your reasoning that working circles could be stopped by a single malicious person, isn't really valid anymore. Apart from that, it might be important to clarify, that a working circle may only be stopped in its work by vote of the majority of active Steemians within all working-circles. Furthermore, it could be helpful to adjust the rule and put some deadlines in there. This is exactly what rule no 9 is aiming at: implementing an organised process of learning.

Finally , I'd like to point out to a major difference between trust-based and control-based types of organisation:

The setup of a classical foundation is driven by preventing unintended things to happen. As a result you have a lot of organisational overhead to still make the foundation work. Just have a look at the proposals: they focus on structure and not so much on those which are supposed to deliver content. As a result, most of these structures tend to be rather slow and not very innovative - maybe not in the beginning, but as soon as working processes become standardised.

DeCentraSteem follows another paradigm. It is an enabling structure, inviting as many people as possible to engage, leaving room for competition, debate and relying on a common purpose. Rules are not made to prevent things to happen but to help the organisation to focus on purpose and goals.

If there is one possible weak point, then it is the purpose. If many active people on Steem don't want to strengthen communities, a lot of malicious behaviour could occur, leading to meaningful effort to hedge it in.

Final remark: measuring proposals by the results to be expected corresponds to our thoughts as well.

In something moving as fast as the blockchain world a real flexible structure is needed to generate results. "Oldstyle"-foundations could be way too slow to keep up with the pace. There definitely is a trade-off between security against unintended results and fast adoption of new circumstances.