I think it is important to keep these things very broad and very open and open to interpretation:

1. In my view these things are not committees. They are task groups or watering holes. Language is key. Committee has too many centralised conotatations

2. these groups are open discussion forums and leaderless. Not committees. In fact ideally (but not practical) it would operate on the basis of No bias, pure ideas. Ideas judged on their merits, not on the user who proposed them and their influence.

3. anyone can join. If too many people. Great. People who are passionate about the issues will find the right people to work with even if they have to look through spam (however I don’t think spam will be an issue)

4. these rooms are idea discussion rooms and resource gathering only. They are places where people who care about the issues can work out solutions to those issues and find out who else is already working on those issues only. Nothing more, nothing less.
   This will drastically reduce repeated work and resource issues as a minimum.

5. no voting. These rooms are for the formation of multiple ideas to solve the same issue. Let the market place decide which ideas are best in cases where there is conflict or disagreement. We should embrace competition where people cannot agree.

6. let’s use this as a chance to work in a decentralised way, after all we are trying to solve the problems that result from the inevitable corruption that comes from centralised systems. We have an opportunity to try something new. No leaders, no elections, but structures that allow us to work efficuently in an anarchic, decentralised way. Anything else surely returns us back to the world from which we are trying to escape. Anything else makes us as bad as the current day politicians who benefit from the well to do people who set up our political systems long ago.

7. in cases where a ‘representative’ is an absolute MUST and only when it is a must, we may want to elect an individual to represent us as a community. I am not sure if this is in the scope of what we are talking about here. I would need to be convinced that we need to have top down organisation and then convinced that we need a representative for a particular area. Even after that, these people would not have ‘decision’ making responsibility, but only the responsibility to represent the needs of a group to the wider community.

8. if we understand the so called scopes of these groups, or watering holes, it would be good to understand further what decisions are required by top down individuals that the market can’t make for us. Until then, let’s get action going by facilitating the place where ideas and resources come together, but nothing more. This is the fastest way to action in my opinion. Then as time goes on we will learn more about whether any one needs electing or what decision power needs to be relinquished to the individual (I expect this to be zero as we should follow the principles of decentralised, leaderless organisation as much as posdible)

9. steem allows the community to reward and bring ideas to the top via the upvoting mechanism. Due to bid bots and the interfaces on the block chain, this is no longer working well. It is hard to find the ideas and coordinate teams. The purpose of These rooms / watering holes would solve that problem, or at least vastly improve on the current situation until an interface that runs directly on the blockchain is implemented to allow the community to better coordinate itself