I think this has been eloquently described by @jMyles:

(...) it is more clear to me than ever that Miner is a broken metaphor. I have never liked this name, but reading this, I am given pause that there is a number mismatch between the work types for a given node and the practices surrounding this work types. For example, the inflation economics apply to a "Staker" or "Worker" (half of what we currently call Miner). Since this is a work token, Worker makes sense to me. However, the work being performed pursuant to this work token, as it relates to the adjudication, is not of only one kind. Presently, we expect Ursula to perform PRE and understand that she'll be slashed if she fails to perform. Let's imagine a future in which we task a different character to perform SSS or NuFHE under the auspices of the same work token. Is this person still a Miner? It seems to me that Worker is a concept that might utilize Ursulas and SSS/NuFHE-characters and is not properly understood as a "mining mixin." Normally, I am not terribly concerned about these sorts of future-proofing exercises, but I think that we'll have crossed an epitaph rubicon if we deploy these smart contracts with the word "Miner" - it will be hard to educate our audience on what we really mean.