I liked how you explained your points. That doesn't mean I fully agree with what you mentioned, though. I will not go over each item to avoid a long discussion but I'll try to be practical and consistent with my previous comments in the question. In short, this means the community needs to take ownership. Again, the only thing that Scott can officially do on his own, is adding code to the Q2A repository (or maybe performing an update on the home page, I guess). Now, EVERYTHING else, should not rely on him.
For example, if you consider a vision as such an important thing (I'm not saying it isn't!), why haven't you suggested one? Have you sent Scott or Gideon the vision you think it should have? Or maybe created a question in here mentioning a possible vision and asked for suggestions about it? Again, Scott/Gideon decide at the end of the day, but if you can make things easier for them by not just mentioning the problem but also providing a possible solution, then you increase the chances of the change actually happening. Of course, this will demand more of your time than just mentioning the problem.
Note this also applies to "Make a small team". Why does Scott/Gideon have to do that? If the commitment is real, then I'm pretty sure there should be 7 people that could be part of the team (basically, the 6 upvoters to this question plus the OP). Instead of saying that, why don't you get started with it? Turn the "Make a small team" into small concrete actions that you can take care of and, if you require any support in any step from Scott/Gideon, then feel free to request it. If the request is rejected, then you will have done everything in your hands, but meanwhile, you have the ball.
Despite the last paragraphs, I agree with you in most of what you said, but I wanted to make it clear that the community should not rely on one person and should be more proactive.