You are confusing "backed by known members of community". That cannot be a selling point for a community that hasn't formed yet
Perhaps you misunderstand what I meant. Known members of community as in the cryptocoin/bitcoin/bitcointalk community.
and are debating which one to fork based on technical differences alone. The community would have jumped on the basis of PoW and emission alone, let alone the other major advancements so far.
Sorry but that is simply not clear at all.
Tacotime who is very experienced and respected in the community, has been involved with many coins, and is a very serious cryptocoin developer himself (MC2), is adamantly opposed to the ring signature trimming for example. The anonymity "improvements" have been strongly panned by the cryptonote developers. I don't think we have stated a position officially but we definitely have some issues with them as well, and definitely don't think they are the best way to "solve cryptonote flaws." The proof-of-work has plusses and minuses, but in reality both are somewhat questionable compared to something more of a hash-based standard. I happen to personally agree with you on emission curve, but others argue that it is better to reduce inflation a bit more quickly to achieve better store-of-value properties.
I'm giving you an honest assessment here purely on technical merit, without any advocacy. You may not believe that and I can't force you to, but it is the case.
What follows, by contrast, is definitely my opinion and perhaps can be reasonably taken as advocacy though I don't intend it that way.
You also can't roll back the clock. A month difference in launch time matters (especially when the later one shares 99% similarity and lacks clear and compelling advantages on the other 1%). The other issues of matter, and reality is not "based on technical differences alone." So this is basically an exercise in an implausible hypothetical.
You are fooling yourself with a victimization complex if you think "it is all FUD" though.