Reworking of the Governance section

[swinny89]

The Governance section is very complicated, and possibly contains unnecessary information. I suggest a general simplification of the whole section and the removal of the Consensus Abstraction Layer.

[ftrader]

I would recommend moving the description of the CAL into a separate document, and only referencing it in future. I think it's a sufficiently "deep" topic that it merits its own document with clear explanations, rationale etc.

The same probably applies to anything else that isn't directly "a roadmap", although of course at this stage the ideas introduced here are new and part of the roadmap is developing them further.

[ChristopherKing42]

There are a couple of commits that have been made in this regard.

[swinny89]

So the way I am thinking of a Governance section for this project would be to describe how governance actually happens in the Bitcoin ecosystem(software development, choice of software, forking, social media campaigns, etc). I don't believe we have the ability to choose specifically how governance happens, but we can at least choose how we as individuals want to affect the ecosystem with the available tools. That being said, we should be very deliberate in explaining that this is an informative document, not a legislative document.

So for the Bitcoin Evolutionary process, using wording like "Turning bitcoin development into..." strikes me as stating that we are choosing to turn Bitcoin development into an evolutionary process. I would rather explain that Bitcoin's development is observably evolutionary. My brain is somewhat fried, but if we can get a discussion on this topic going, maybe we can flesh some of this out.

Also, I think we might benefit from a dedicated governance document, which is linked to from the roadmap. I think the governance section has the potential to become quite large.