In scientific cultures participants contribute clues, in publicizing ways forward, there's no privileged status needed, particularly in the communication age. Any eternal light needs to stand on it's own merits, and the collective tests of time determine what holds up, rather than personal status. Finite blind spots are the norm, outside of biblically uncontroversial thinking.
We contribute clues, not lead, pending ongoing audio webinars to discuss any amendments. Contributors to audio webinars can use AI voices to remain anonymous if necessary. There's only contribution/s of thinking in scientific cultures. Being finite, we're limited to focus topics or points, necessitating peer review, as in scientific pursuits, to flesh out ways forward, where opportunity may or may not exist. When sweeping thinking of blocs occur then each contributing bloc needs to review pros and cons of potential policy. Status and glamour have quite limited basis in scientific forums, in our communication age. No person has a monopoly on truths, but where possible we seek consensus using the scientific method of floating a falsifiable hypothesis for peer and public review. Jumping to conclusions has little if any place in that method, due process is essential, to weed out and strengthen thinking where that applies.
Seeking rigor leads to integrating the scientific method into forums, as the less fallible approach to progress in truth.
Since humanity's court systems use that form of seeking progress, why wouldn't forums need to use due process of scientific rigor ?
Any thought of status would harm more than help. Any light that might be found can stand on it's own merits, not needing a champion. In scientific cultures and the communication age there's no need to be located at hotspots.
The world doesn't need more leaders, just as much lowly biblically consistent providence as mere mortals might dare hope for.