Miners have no power. And that's a good thing

The market decides which set of consensus rules has the most valuable token, and then the miners flock to it

Miners are sheep, following the money, while the (economic) nodes are the shepherds

It's possible that a lot of stubborn miners will keep their hashrate on the least-valuable chain for a long time. But that's not my problem 😜.

The only exception is in the extremely unlikely event that a large group of miners are able to coordinate themselves to do an extended 51% attack on the chain they don't like. But that won't happen as it requires too much coordination and will be insanely expensive

We, the node runners, must stay vigilant and constantly take actions to ensure miners don't gain any power, as things could change in future

Because people. See Risk Sharing Principle:

It doesn't change the problem: what is a good process for doing this in knots?

Should it begin in some community consensus? From where?

Should it start with developers? How much should be discussed before presenting to the community?

Earlier you said,

But what is your better proposal for doing this?

I think it's a broader problem with social consensus that plagues everything, because we live in an engagement based paradigm for social media (ad funded optimised for time on device) based upon the bunk idea of "revealed preferences", which is just a terrible idea that pervades everything.

The downstream effects of this in discourse, politics, and civil integration are myriad, but for the purposes of your question it has the unfortunate effect siloing for the sake of security through obscurity. Groups below the Dunbar number where it's possible to have repeat interactions with identifiable individuals segregate to avoid the noise of platforms like twitter, Instagram, Facebook, or whatever bullshit platform captures the broader communities attention. In dance communities they might balkanise into WhatsApp, which makes promoting what they want to get out into the public sphere really difficult. The same effect exists in technical communities. Technically anyone may be able to post, but the discourse happens in places where there is a technical or other hurdle, meaning public discourse is meaningfully segregated from technical discourse, and because the environments have different models for amplifying and suppressing voices (not necessarily better, different) they come to intractably different conclusions.

The segregation of networks below the Dunbar number also creates in-group team dynamics, and if a member of the in-group sides with "the mob" they get excommunicated for introducing "noise", even if the mob is right on that occasion (even if they are right for the wrong reasons), reinforcing friend-enemy distinctions. One hierarchy cannot abide the conclusions of another, one power center cannot abide the mandate of another.

Twitter is indeed a terrible place for discourse, but technical discourse has to happen meaningfully in public, not segregated and balkanised, or decisions like that made on OP_RETURN will feel to the public like something out of the blue, an attack.

Anything that works, anything robust against entropy, stable, reliable, trustworthy, is built on proof of work, even if bitcoin's is the most efficient. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Social media should be built on a Pagerank-like paradigm, shirking revealed preferences in favour of optimising for consensus, and applying the perfectly aligned business model of Substack or Patreon. A follow would be contextual, not general. You should follow people for a specific key word, not all of their content, and this would be a sort of weak endorsement. Build more explicit endorsements on top of that, and explicit references ("I stayed with this guy during a #bitcoin conference in New York and he was a great host" or "this guy is my #bitcoin development mentor" or "she has been my #salsa dance teacher for 5 years and is the best"). The highest reference I can think of is a monthly donation, and that is where the platform can take a cut for development funding. Build this around real world events because repeat interactions help to build integration and supports good behaviour, weeding out (decreasing amplification) the awful behaviour of people who hide behind keyboards.

I've been working on this since the block size wars, when I temporarily lost faith in bitcoin because I felt that it would eventually win but not within the current social media paradigm.

I wish I could build this on something that Bitcoiners would accept, but I don't know how to do it on something like Nostr, because private key literacy is still in its infancy.

I think we're just going to be plagued by these fork wars until Bitcoiners realise that we need to fix social discourse before bitcoin can break out, or it's fixed for them.

Once that problem is solved the business end, the thin end of the wedge, the tip of the spear that you're talking about resolves itself organically. Human beings are good at that part. The broader context is causing the problems.

In other words, you don't throw a spear by holding the pointy bit at the top.