My concerns remain the same as ever (see New management committee for pDAO planning - #3 by Valdorff for a fuller version).
The work of this committee already exists in practice. The ad hoc soft power is held by the people willing and able to do the work.
I don’t think this would change much with a committee. If someone off the committee was willing and able to do the work, they could do so regardless of the committee’s preferences (surely we’re not looking to stifle good work). If the committee can’t motivate someone willing and able to do the work, then it won’t happen regardless of the committee’s preferences.
This is definitely subjective, but I see this as likely to add friction and make us less good at getting new talent empowered (eg, @samus has taken the reins significantly for tokenomics, @LongForWisdom helping with tokenomics and a lot of governance focused things, etc). I acknowledge this outcome is nearly the opposite of the premise for the committee, but that’s how I see it playing out.