Only semi-related, but...

To me, 'core' is strongly associated with bitcoin.org, the repo, and distributions of binaries since that is what most users probably use.

Did you guys consider simply requiring a 'manual' step for selecting a config set and distributing one as the standard which is the most well tested against to release and most widely discussed and understood by the primary contributors?  Naturally downstream package management systems would usually eliminate the 'manual' part, or make nifty menus or whatever.

Seems to me that doing this would potentially reduce somewhat the liability concerns (since people _could have_ filtered out CP or whatever attack might be at hand) but it is up to the user to choose 'their own' configs.  I suppose that instructions to edit the configs might achieve more or less the same thing.

Also, of course, it might mollify some of the community to a degree.  Without knowing too much about it, I kinda feel that it might be worth the hassle to have a relatively advanced config+lint system and encourage it to be developed and used.  Of course it complicate development and lead to a ton of user level problems and issues, but I feel that it would ultimately end up with a more robust system and one capable of rapid defenses against attacks (or conversely, lead to attacks for that matter.)

I have to say (maybe again) that issues such as these are welcome windows into the ecosystem personalities, philosophies, skill levels, cults, etc) as a whole.  I also have to say that it landed certain people who I had some confidence in a lot farther down on my list of trusted personalities.  Samson Mow for one, and the Kratter guy and the BTC sessions guy for two.  All three are relatively new to me.  All put out good and insightful information, but I don't feel that they conducted themselves very well at all here, and in some cases I have to re-think the use of some of the products they are associated with.