In political studies and international relations, conflict resolution can take many forms, many factors can play a key role in how to approach the negotiations (ethic, ethnic, religion, culture, military power....). I like the current situation because it portrays something called "mutually assured destruction":

Mutually assured destruction is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.

The discussion should start by choosing:

• a small group that represents the interests of the community that supported the SF;
• a small group that represents the interests of Steemit Inc or let's just say Sun;
• and one person, one single person that both sides can trust, he needs to be completely neutral and has a history of neutrality regarding the events.

Involving hundreds of people will only make things worst. Everything should be transparent, with no more secret decisions.

I don't think that the "10 votes" alone would solve the problem, you can read my take on this from here:

https://steemit.com/witness-update/@dr-frankenstein/q6p7kx