I think everyone made their points and it might be useful to avoid ending in circles. I would like to add a perspective on one of your justifications though. Not to disprove your point, but maybe highlight how dangerous its justification is, and that it maybe could achieve the opposite of what it was actually intended for.
In the context in which you made it, doesn’t this justification inevitably lead to Fedora being step by step transformed into a corporate unit of RH and behave as such?
I mean, if RH no longer finds it useful to keep funding Fedora and compares it, as you indicate, to its integrated alternatives (in which people “can be told what to do”), and uses the performance indicators that are usual in integrated alternatives, then Fedora cannot compete until it reached the point of being identical, right?
This would mean, that the transparency institutions of Fedora (to stick with a simple isolated example) must be step by step replaced by secrecy institutions in order to protect the transparency, which at some point will no longer exist anyway.
At the same time, the Council would more and more decrease the likelihood that any other organization would take over, as when it becomes apparent that we need to find alternatives, the Fedora governance is already so unpredictable from the outside and integrated into RH that no other organization would touch it.
With this in mind, would it be not more useful to let RH cut funding early and when it is rationalized as such (in contrast to a subtle non-rationalized non-discussed process that might became irreversible when it becomes apparent), to find alternative funding to take over? I admit, I am not sure if the Council as it is would be qualified to do so, as I am not sure if they are already too deeply integrated in RH to be considered neutral by others (this is not accusation, but might be also the result of circumstances they are not in full control of, and this is just a weak assumption based on many assumptions and limited availability of facts).
IF Fedora is important for this eco-system, one can trust that the Linux community as such - as with Alma and Rocky back then - finds a way to mitigate and fill the gap. Maybe someone takes over funding (maybe even more than 1), maybe it is split among other communities, maybe something new rises, maybe something else. Otherwise, then so be it, but then it is at least a rationalized process that everyone can respond to. IF not, the world will survive too I expect 
This also implies that your justification enters the realm of “what if” → it can effectively justify anything. But immediately, it has made it unclear to the community when the Council acts as agent of RH and when as agent of the community. This can be a serious issue, and already questions what the community is, and if and what is the actual leadership.
I make these points not with relative ethics in mind but static correlations: communities in the Linux world are key facilitators of knowledge creation and transfer. This massive problem solving capability usually correlates with certain institutions. And if the Council replaces them, the actual value Fedora used to create will cease to occur anyway, long before a funding ceases.
Also, I agree that this project must be a synergy, and offer a well return on investment for both sides: if this is no longer fulfilled for RH, I find it ok to leave, but making it clear to do so and seeking a handover (even if it is just to retain their reputation for OS projects), rather then to end up in subtle developments in which the community is not even involved when it gets step by step transformed…
This is just a (partially quite radical & surely massively simplified) perspective that considers a potential development, not arguing this must apply just because of this one case, and it is only one interpretation of the reality, next to other realistic interpretations. But maybe worth to be kept in mind when evaluating cases like this or using justifications like that …