Do you want democratic governance to decide which features should be included in Mastodon? Then answer me this: Will you invite the users of pawoo.net (for example) to join in that decision? If not, then you are not proposing democratic governance.
Do you want to collaborate on a fediblock list? Great, that could be useful to the many admins of the decentralized Fediverse. Will you declare that every instance that doesn't adopt your fediblock list will be added to your fediblock list? That is centralized control. It's contrary to the principles of the Fediverse, and it's also profoundly ignorant of the zillions of tiny 1-to-10-user instances who don't need your list.
Are you planning moderation rules for the Fediverse? Cool, but do you personally have substantial experience moderating an Internet discussion group or forum? If not, you should step back into an advisory role, and listen to experienced moderators. Otherwise you're just doing an Elon Musk.
Do you have ideas for improving ActivityPub or other Fediverse technical features? Excellent! THIS is where the Fediverse needs governance, because technical standards are what make the whole thing work. But are you reinventing a wheel that was already invented 5 or 10 years ago? Because many issues have already been solved, released as FOSS or public domain software, and debugged by years of usage. Consider the value of maintaining compatibility with what is already working.