I also find it strange to propose a way to "decide DHF votes" by a small group of people. The entire idea of stake-weighted voting is to give stakeholders the ability to vote, isn't it? :D

Well no, everyone would vote on the strategy and direction proposal just like you vote right now a normal DHF proposal. What this would do is concentrate votes in a single direction, create demand signals and create certainty for investors as to where we are going and what our chain wide goals are.

So this is in no way different to stake weighed voting right now except it would create a unified direction for the chain that does not exist at this moment.

We already had a valueplan which could be considered a test run for that idea.

I would completely disagree on that. Valueplan just funded some community marketing efforts and that didnt work out precisely because it lacked exactly what I describe here.

It didn't happen for a long time, and the same would happen with the council IMO.

No, it wouldnt precisely because of 6 month mandates and a strategy program presented that would be followed. Something we never had.

Not really sure if this is because stakeholders don't care, or they think we need devs/something funded apart from their deliverables

Theres no one responsible for anything, there is no strategy to the funding, people just react to whats in front of their faces. This is the opposite of that. It adds accountability chainwide and is proactive, not reactive.

But that's the case, and the same people would vote on the council.

Those people would vote on the program, something that has never existed. Thats masively different than voting on a single proposal that shows up, and really nothing is showing up precisely because there are no demand signals and no one knows what Hive needs. Which is why we are still following Ned Scotts vision for Hive.

The lack of accountability is, in my opinion, the biggest issue her, and I don't really know how to solve it.

There is no lack of accountability from proposals. Thats a pet statement people repeat. You have public githubs/gitlabs you can see whats delivered. The proposals are there, most dont promise anything. My Magi proposal is possibly the only actually talking about milestones, timelines, goals. Maybe Keychain as well lately.
We have been literally paying for maintenance of Steemit clones for years. Thats not a matter of accountability. Thats a matter of "We have no strategy, just vote whats there."

And being in such a council brings no benefits so not really sure if that would matter to anyone (of course, the benefit would be to have a strong influence on the future of our change, but hard to imagine it's enough).

If those people that would want to introduce change to Hive do not exist on Hive, then Hive deserves to die. If no one cares, why should investors care. If our top stakeholders dont want to come together and set a direction for Hive then why would anyone want to invest to be a part of that group?