Notably, former general counsel Murck acknowledged a need to repair the foundation's relationship with the bitcoin community, even if that meant sometimes adopting unpopular or controversial positions on some issues, and taking risks with communication and transparency to demonstrate honest engagement.
He wrote:
"That means we may not always say exactly the right thing and we might not always be on message, but we will be authentic in how we interact with the community in the future and I hope that you all get to know the people who work hard to make the foundation go."
So being "on message" is not being truthful and transparent? Cool story. Maybe that's your problem?
Adopting unpopular and controverial positions on some issues is why people loathe / don't give a shit about Bitcoin Foundation in the first place.
What propaganda is this? Stating something but meaning something else and separating messaging from mission = shitty foundation with alterior motives.
It isn't difficult. State your mission and then your roles within the organization is to exemplify the mission via action or clarify the mission to explain action.
There shouldn't be a disconnect with what you are stating and what you are doing.