...What are the relevant and material facts being ignored?...
I guess you're right, ad hom attacks claiming that
every skilled dev
in the entire world already works for Core and
not one single qualified coder would
ever work on a non-Core project (let alone ensure that a non-Core project was thoroughly tested) are 100% factually based. My bad.
Isn't that called a strawman attack?
You are creating an argument that no one made.
On the other hand, if there is already non-exclusive and open process in place through core procedures that have been working and evolving for nearly 8 years in which code is tested and vetted through a Core open process, and if non-core code goes live, but seems to have experienced a less open and less robust testing and vetting process (and maybe even a bit rushed process), along with spot checks of vulnerabilities, questionable usage of some discretionary code language and historical instances in which those non-core software implementations had caused crashing and even orphaning issues - then there could be a bit more confidence to run the tested and vetted code, no? maybe even some economic incentives not to get orphaned or maybe some other vulnerability? or even some questions about the political significance of running some code that may have some non-vetted discretionary language?