"To recap, open governance that is true in more than in marketing managed by a non-profit. True multi-vendor participation instead of a dominant single vendor. No requirement of contributor license agreements. At a technical level, reduction and possibly eliminating the practise of duplicating existing system libraries with a Qt flavor. These would be a good start."
No, it wouldn't be a good start, not for you. You would still be clamouring for something more, something else, something that's not in place yet -- you would invent another reason why you cannot use Qt, because you're too partisan towards GTK to allow for anything else.
Because the open governance is more than marketing. Because there are multipe vendors participating -- like kdab, for instance, or kde. Because there are sound technical arguments for not using the stl. Which you would never admit to, because your position is bound up with having to reject those arguments. Basically the only thing in your list that makes a modicum of sense as an argument for not contributing to Qt is the CLA -- and that doesn't make any sense at all as an argument for not using Qt.
But hey, I know I wasted my time here. It's vanishingly unlikely that any argument will change the mind of someone who is as entrenched in their position as you are.