My feel from the Rust that I've done so far: you know you're in something like an industry consortium, they're trying to please all the stakeholders, and gain adoption, and one can even see community input partly as market research. I like that I know where I stand.

With Racket, the community relationship has been fuzzier, with all the various enthusiasts and volunteers, with money not a factor.

From the professors' perspective, I'd say they're pursuing their research and education ideas, as well as getting funding, publications, tenure, awards -- and I think all that is mostly the goals of Racket. Nurturing a user base serves those goals.

From some other community people's perspectives, Racket is a community effort, to support, with the professors doing most of the work on the core, while everyone contributes in various other ways. I suspect many have assumed it's a partnership of aligned interests, towards some shared goals, or that the core is a benevolent dictatorship that will represent the interests of the current user community.

I recently saw someone mocking Racketeers for being alarmed about losing their precious parentheses, but I don't think that's the problem, for maybe half the people who are concerned. I think the problem for some is having their ideas of the goals of Racket and the community relationship shaken up, after they've invested.