So the major players want to bring some order to the bazaar. So be it - they can try. There are small projects that will probably decide to cooperate, and will because they are a one- or two- person effort - but the projects that truly behave like a bazaar will remain as coordinated or uncoordinated as they still are.
I don't see this effort being capable of shoving an agenda down anybody's throats - if you don't care for the agenda, don't. Submit your code to the project as and when you see fit, and work on the bits you want to. If tomorrow they want to address what they see as glaring issues in GNU's netcat, they'll be able to throw resources at it collectively - but I doubt they'll be able to tap GNU's shoulder and say "hey, give us some of 'your' devs to fix this."
In the end, if the effort results in a pooled selection of developers, incentivized directly and collectively (read: employed) by the companies, to work on aspects of open source projects they have communal stake in, to common goals and specification, that is probably going to be a good thing.
If they fork any of the technologies that is fine too - that's exactly what GNU GPLv3 was meant to allow them to do. They just can't expect to fork the maintainers and community too.
If however there is a scenario in which volunteers can be coerced into their way or the highway, that scenario must be understood and countermeasures prepared by those who would stand to lose from it. Don't take it too seriously, but don't take it in any way lightly either.