Regarding hiring without consulting the community, there is a reason that companies hire a CEO to make all the decisions, rather than having all stakeholders weigh in on every hire. We are giving Ron room as Executive Director to do his job, and even if he makes mistakes on the way (and he undoubtedly will) I vastly prefer that to decision-by-committee.
Ron and David both told me two days ago that their goal is to dissolve the foundation and have *all* decisions determined by proof-of-stake voting. They are trying to put the governance of the protocol into the protocol itself.
Proof-of-stake voting will almost certainly not ask every person to weigh in on every decision (that would be horribly inefficient). Instead, we'll elect someone to be in charge of a block of money for a block of time. At the end of that time, we'll elect someone else (or the same person, if we like how they ran things) for the next block of money and block of time. The size of the blocks of money and blocks of time will also be decided by proof-of-stake voting.
For instance, we might vote to give Ron authorization to spend 5% of the project funds over the following three months. If Ron does a terrible job, we might elect somebody else after that. If we like how Ron spent the money, we might elect him again.
