This raises a question, whether someone who is unable to make it to the public discussion forfeits their vote. If the answer is yes, then voting should be allowed only during the live discussion. Otherwise, an absent committee member may cast their vote up to a certain amount of time after the discussion took place, 48 hours sounds fair in my opinion. I'm OK with either option though, both seem to have similarly significant pros and cons.

Regarding the other issue. I think that instead of looking at this as formal/informal structures. Its better to look at two aspects which both of them have in common:
1: how flexible they are. How much can they change direction, when logic dictates to do so.
1a: for instance, if a work proposal turns out to be much less beneficial after work has begun. Can the committee realocate the funds elsewhere? To some extent it would be a good thing, sometimes flaws are noticed after a delay, sometimes circumstances change midwork, sometimes talents quit and a proper replacement is not found. Having things not set in stone is a plus. We can't anticipate everything from the beginning. So flexibility is important. But
2: predictability is just as important as I see it. A talent wants to know that if he/she completes a certain task, they will be compensated by a certain amount. This is the formal part. Partially rigid rules, that set an environment that motivates people to work. When people know what to expect, they are willing to make greater commitments. An informal structure doesn't, or bately allows that.

I honestly hope enough of us can reach a consensus already, so that we can start forming stuff.

I'll try to start a pilot vote via dpoll, to try to understand where most Steemians (among those who participate in the poll) stand on committees task forces and the like.

We have incredible momentum right now, I really want us to heavily capitalize on it.