user78: Genjix wrote about this in two recent posts. Here's one.

Some developers argue that with the issues being highly complex, that
  users have no say in the system’s core development

And the other:

Other developers disagree with giving this information away and feel
  like you as users should trust their judgement

Are there public expressions of some core developers that object to public scrutiny and participation in the decision-making process? Who, of the core team, has issued such opinions?

user78: Some posts that genjix might have referred to:
by theymos:

Miners (as a group) should not be given any say over issues like this.
  They do not necessarily know what the best option is. The issue should
  be decided by people very familiar with the protocol and the
  proposals.
I suggest that we compile a list of everyone who knows a lot about the
  Bitcoin protocol, invite them to a two-week discussion via email, and
  have those who participate in the discussion vote on the issue at the
  end of the two weeks. If one proposal gets enough votes (two-thirds,
  say), then Bitcoin clients will be programmed to apply the new
  restrictions ~3 months in the future. Miners will have to upgrade by
  then or their blocks will not be recognized by most clients. If there
  aren't enough votes for any proposal to pass, the issue will be
  shelved for a while.

by Technomage:

The bottom line is that non-technical people should have no say in an
  issue that is purely technical. This is technocratic democracy and
  it's simply the best way. All technical people should be invited to
  the discussion and then they can vote amongst themselves, simple as
  that. Then the results are made public and the miners will upgrade
  based on that, if the team decided to go forward with either BIP.
  There should of course be a vote for "neither".


user85: You misunderstand what the developers are saying. They are not saying that they object to pubic scrutiny and participation. They are saying that being a user of Bitcoin does not somehow specially qualify you to comment on the design or implementation of the Bitcoin system.

78: <p>Genjix wrote about this in two recent posts. Here's <a href="http://bitcoinmedia.com/cathartic-progress/" rel="nofollow">one</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Some developers argue that with the issues being highly complex, that
  users have no say in the system’s core development</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And <a href="http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-truth-behind-bip-16-and-17/" rel="nofollow">the other</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Other developers disagree with giving this information away and feel
  like you as users should trust their judgement</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Are there public expressions of some core developers that object to public scrutiny and participation in the decision-making process? Who, of the core team, has issued such opinions?</p>
 78: <p>Some posts that genjix might have referred to:</p>

<p><strong><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61922.msg722833#msg722833" rel="nofollow">by theymos</a>:</strong></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Miners (as a group) should not be given any say over issues like this.
  They do not necessarily know what the best option is. The issue should
  be decided by people very familiar with the protocol and the
  proposals.</p>
  
  <p>I suggest that we compile a list of everyone who knows a lot about the
  Bitcoin protocol, invite them to a two-week discussion via email, and
  have those who participate in the discussion vote on the issue at the
  end of the two weeks. If one proposal gets enough votes (two-thirds,
  say), then Bitcoin clients will be programmed to apply the new
  restrictions ~3 months in the future. Miners will have to upgrade by
  then or their blocks will not be recognized by most clients. If there
  aren't enough votes for any proposal to pass, the issue will be
  shelved for a while.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61922.msg723938#msg723938" rel="nofollow">by Technomage</a></strong>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The bottom line is that non-technical people should have no say in an
  issue that is purely technical. This is technocratic democracy and
  it's simply the best way. All technical people should be invited to
  the discussion and then they can vote amongst themselves, simple as
  that. Then the results are made public and the miners will upgrade
  based on that, if the team decided to go forward with either BIP.
  There should of course be a vote for "neither".</p>
</blockquote>
 85: <p>You misunderstand what the developers are saying. They are not saying that they object to pubic scrutiny and participation. They are saying that being a user of Bitcoin does not somehow specially qualify you to comment on the design or implementation of the Bitcoin system.</p>
