That is one of the most difficult topics here at steemit. First of all, one must look if it is indeed decentralized, and if a business actually can be decentralized at all, and can run through the efforts of the stakeholders.
It may be technically decentralized (from that I have no expertise or competence to tell - but to trust) but obviously it is not so much on the social side.

What is also a matter of fact is that this is a crypto based platform and therefor it is on the top of high risk ranking businesses. The role of Steemit Inc. is not clear, in particular not to new people who just enter the blockchain.

A lot is being left to the single user to decide on, which I find correct as when I have some business attached ideas to my blogging activities I should first of all check if my plans are reasonable or if I would be better of investing my time and energy outside of a blog chain and promote my business elsewhere.

From my point of view steemit is kind of a hybrid. A lot is managed from the many users - technical wise as well as community related. This whole thing is in early stages considering that decentralization is a very very unusual concept to all of us as we are mostly used to hierarchy. But one cannot totally neglect the hierarchy, I think.

How I understand business there has to be at least a team which secures that the system runs and can be looked at as a success. But whom are you going to ask? Are there any balances and business plans you can check? Who would give them to you? Is steemit Inc. still the main driver of this blockchain or the many sub-cultures who gathered here online?

In order to track those questions one gets lost in this vast space. There the witnesses come into play. I do not know a lot about them, read through some reports and posts of several witnesses and made my votes. If they are the ones the functionality of the blockchain is mostly dependent on, I would not only ask for the technical stuff but also how they work as a team.

Life experience tells me that your team needs many different skills and views as well. One can be a brilliant coder and programer but not so good in talking to the community. Another one is highly competent in public relations (in a sincere sense of meaning to get in touch to the many). Then you have the visionary and artistic one, and you have one with strong ethical conduct and one who is scientifically oriented. I simplified it a bit but in a group it's important to have a certain dynamic and not so much heterogeneity. And so on.
In a democratic world this witnesses do not always agree with one another, in fact, they must discuss and argue and then be able to come to a consensus when every voice is being heard and seriously considered. The next difficulty is: on what base the team is deciding on its next steps? Is it a democratic approach or can it also be another approach (the Internet is full of fascinating alternatives how to come to consensus). This process actually should in one form or the other be revealed to the users.

But where?

From my point of view there is a thing missing here: Right now we see a blue bar at top of page, before this it was red. I find this a good method to be used for informing all users. Why aren't the witnesses using it? Or do they? Who decides on this?

I think, why this does not take place may have to do with the fact that if there was an official central place where you can "see and talk to the witness team" they might be overrun by the stakeholders. Or afraid of not being able to handle and select the many comments ...

I don't know. I think the witnesses themselves could answer on this.