yeah, so the whole reason decentralization is favored by BTC enthusiasts and from it's brain-mothers (wikicash, bitcash, zcoin, ect. aka a bunch of dead proto-coins) was due to manipulation.

Lets go with your model where only the "qualified" can speak. Who or whom sets the standard for qualifications? If that standard is set by those in power what prevents those in power from amending the standard to preserve their own power? What factors would merit the removal of one or more of these entities from control of BTC Core?

Next thing you know there is a 0.1% service fee on everything to "support the bitcoin core foundation" that actually goes to line the pockets of the foundation controling party. Next thing you know 0.1% compounds over a generation or two and there is now a party composed of one or more players that control 51% and the entire network is physically useless but still used out of lack of innovation in the sector as all competition to the Core was opposed.

yeah, fuck your future bro. No no and no. 

 We already have this today in a way, only a few people have commit access to Bitcoin core repo. Have they done any harm so far? No. 
You're over thinking my proposal way too much. Every software project on the planet is lead by a set of people or a foundation. It's a natural thing to do, in Bitcoin's case it's still technically core devs but they have much less power in the sense that they're too scared to make any bold decision. 
All I'm saying is, we raise the pool of people who can be the "core" and then start enforcing better rules. 
All the code is public anyway, they cannot go do insane things like changing supply cap to 42m from 21m. It's all public.