That wasn't a criticism, just an observation. It was a bit of a Rorschach statement - people have read in to it whatever they want.
That said, I haven't really seen much from them in the way of developing protocols, etc. They had the money many other projects could've used to get farther, and what would have been better stewardship of the donations would have been to use that money to spearhead a movement between existing projects to interoperate and create formal standards. Instead, they spent several months and gave us insecure rails code.
You make a very good point: for the money they got, they could be creating more value (or creating value differently). I'd prefer if they released a stripped-down 1.0 that anyone could dig into; right now, they're centralizing too many design decisions.
As far as developing technology goes, a working proof of concept should be as good a starting point as any and that's what they're doing. (Sure: not the best practice out there, to develop first and document later, but in this particular arena, I'm a pathological satisficer: just get the bloody thing done.)
That said, I haven't really seen much from them in the way of developing protocols, etc. They had the money many other projects could've used to get farther, and what would have been better stewardship of the donations would have been to use that money to spearhead a movement between existing projects to interoperate and create formal standards. Instead, they spent several months and gave us insecure rails code.
Now that is my criticism.