Even if it is theoretically true that Go is open source, by employing the majority of the Core Go team, Google exercises extensive soft power over Go. All of the defenses of Go seem to gloss over this.
I mean, the community has (so far) just a few cases were decisions of the core team were 'not so good'. Sometimes because we didn't like the process and sometimes because of the outcome. But I guess, in general, the majority of Go users likes what the core team does.
The problem is more about that many of us have a problem with Google (for a myriad of reasons) and seeing that the core team is tied so deeply into that company makes us worry about future decisions of the core team (as you said). But what could/should the core team do about it?
Suggestions?
1. Embed yourself in the community rather than shy away from it. It's impossible to escape the criticism of "acting on behalf of the company", but being a member of the community can certainly help perception problems
2. Act more slowly on accepting things so that as many voices as possible can have a say
3. Scope what you do to what you're capable of doing _well_
Even if a given feature for a given release isn't what the majority want, people will use it if it solves a problem and is designed and implemented thoroughly.
How many of us get to be lunch or drinking buddies with Russ Cox or Rob Pike? Googlers have much easier access to both than the external community and those are really the only two that matter.
With the key difference being that you can use a different language and achieve the same results you want. You can't just pick a different government.
I think it would be productive to try and list areas where Go would be different if it wasn't at Google. Some examples: C integration, loading plugins, desktop GUIs.