Honestly I think that if there is no turnout and the community ends up working like a meritocracy, like many above suggested, than there won’t be decentralization of the decision making process.
There are easy ways to solve the turnout process: In my proposed solution, every 3 months some numbers of council members are removed. No need for that number to be 100%. And it can at the same time reward merit.
There are 9 council members.
There is a system to rank them (like I proposed).
Every epoch (3 months), x (for example, 3 out of 9, or 5 out of 9) number of council members (the ones with the lowest ranking) are removed and new members join.
The following epoch, only older members can be selected to be removed, etc.
This can be automated.
About the number of council members and consensus:
Even though I understand the reasons for @Dacha and others to say that 9 people is too much and the time needed for evaluation of proposals will increase, I think they are looking at the problem from the wrong angle.
Imo, consensus is NOT something the community should strive for. Consensus is, in a way, anti-democratic (not accusing anyone of being anti-democratic, this is just a philosophical suggestion).
Consensus demands that council members talk to each other and, eventually, convince each other of the validity of a proposal. This will be business as usual, with traditional power relations and lobbying.
If we limit the power of council members to onchain (or offchain, whatever) voting, instead of gate-keeping and demanding 1-on-1 explanations, then every proposal can be voted on time.
We will never be decentralized if we keep the same traditional structures that we see everywhere around us.
If there are 9 (the number is not important, but it’s important that it is high enough) council members, and if their only job is to vote, each one has exactly 1/9 of the decision power.
If we strive for consensus, then, by default, some council members will have power over others, either because they are veterans, or because they are in a lot of councils and therefore have higher reach, or because they are really tight friends with some other important person. Then, some council members have 0/9 decision power, because the voting power will be stripped (not actual, but only virtual), and others will have 2/9 or 3/9 responsibility in every decision.
I think this is a huge mistake.