We should just define Ethereum governance to be a coin toss and call it a day. We can start with ProgPoW: We'll toss a coin, if it is heads then we move forward with ProgPoW, if it is tails we don't.
The core developers discussed these issues in the open for months. We talked with GPU miners, ASIC manufactures, and many more. We considered every angle we could, including any you brought to our attention. We decided to move forward unless technical defects are found in progPow by full consensus--there were no blocking objections. To call our process a coin toss is franky insulting.
The only flaw I see in our process here is that Hudson @Souptacular did not make as clear a statement of that consensus as he could have.
A coin toss would be far inferior. The calls get messy sometimes, but the process is that issues are first placed on the agenda for discussion -- see Project Management: Meeting notes and agenda items. Issues are resolved by deliberating until we reach consensus, which might take more than one call, or never happen at all. Hudson the @Souptacular usually calls the consensus. I think we do need to make the consensus more explicit after the fact, as the notes are generally not an accurate transcription.