Before: Gavin or who ever is lead dev had to personally defend his and his team's actions while the whole community was carefully monitoring what he did AND he was easily removable from his lead position
This is getting interesting. How would you go about to remove Gavin from his lead position in the old model? You claim it was easy. To me it seems easier now when I am a member of the foundation employing him. I wonder how you would go about to revoke his Satioshi powers in the old model.
I don't think the community will stop watching. A large part of the community has joined the foundation, and will watch it as well.
How? Fork git, discredit his.
It's all about credibility, it always was. Back then a lead dev was solely responsible for his, now he has a corporation shielding it for him.
Yeah you joined? And your going to vote him out? Is that why the political system works oh so well? Because elections are a good way to get rid of bad people? Please, I'm not 5 years old. You can't remove Gavin now. First of all he is on the board of directors for the next two years, to vote him off you will need to wait at least that long but secondly he is a founding member, and you can't get rid of one of those.
i.e. J.P. Morgan, CIA and Governmental funding for this organization would be an issue.
And all of them secretly funding the developers under the old model would not?
The old model would entail organizations going to each developer at the GitHub and having them work for them -- not easily done. Under the Bitcoin Foundation, there is more clout and changes can be pushed more easily just through Gavin.
If J.P. Morgan, CIA and governments around the world would like to support Bitcoin's open development, I would welcome it. They could do it under the old model as well, but under the old model we wouldn't necessarily know about it. Perhaps this is your problem? You just don't want to know about it?
And this fallacy is exactly the reason why I preferred him being independent and constantly watched by the community. Now the community will trust that this Bitcoin foundation is being honest and open about who pays which bill where NOTHING prevents someone still paying a lead dev secretly to do whatever (not that I think this is relevant in the first place). So you see, this false sense of security under the pretense that it was actually needed is actually a moral hazard, the first of it's kind in the Bitcoin ecosystem and a huge danger down the road.
