It's a lot easier to get the 'top stuff' from the community to the top if it the core team is inclusive rather than exclusive.
The examples you give are from communities that have for the most part learned how to deal with those issues (python itself especially, in the talk GvR is actually quoted as having reversed his position on specifically that point).
Communities tend to be one or more orders of magnitude larger than the core team of most projects, and to disregard such an enormous pool of talent is a loss. So what if 90% is junk, let the community sort it out and come to a consensus on which things deserve to be part of contrib or core, and then respect that decision, unless there are really earth shattering reasons not to.
I know, I'm a member of python-core, and I was happy with the change. And Django core is here, and listening, and was in the audience of the talk.
It's growing pains - and even python-core, despite guido's recent change of mind, is still learning, and finding ways to reduce friction. Django core is listening, and will change. There's nothing much to worry about.
And if they don't, they die, and we move on (see, past python web frameworks, and other things which wander into the woods to die).
The examples you give are from communities that have for the most part learned how to deal with those issues (python itself especially, in the talk GvR is actually quoted as having reversed his position on specifically that point).
Communities tend to be one or more orders of magnitude larger than the core team of most projects, and to disregard such an enormous pool of talent is a loss. So what if 90% is junk, let the community sort it out and come to a consensus on which things deserve to be part of contrib or core, and then respect that decision, unless there are really earth shattering reasons not to.