Charlie: I have no doubt that you're a good guy and you mean well.

My top 3 concerns/solutions:

• Lack of board representation for the privacy-focused sociopolitical viewpoint.  Currently, business interests far outweigh privacy interests on the Foundation's board.  Matonis is outnumbered.  The addition of a nonprofit political Bitcoin advocate like Falkvinge or Björnsdóttir would address this.
• Lack of board representation for international viewpoints.  Currently the whole thing seems very USA-centric.  Same solution as above.
• Danger in a financial dependency relationship between dev group and foundation.  A direct compensation arrangement leaves the dev group susceptible to future pressure and influence through the foundation.  It would be much better if the foundation created an independent salary/donation mechanism where the community was allowed to donate to the development budget first, and the foundation donated on top of that only in case of a shortfall.  Basically make the payment process as decentralized and autonomous as possible.

Anything you can do to address these would be appreciated.  Thank you for listening.