I can see there is a trend to adopt a soft fork that involves Ethereum too, not just DAO. Of course this is the type of situation that shouldn't be allowed. The DAO incosistencies are now effecting Ethereum, and all that is managed by the community is to make the "hacker" shoot down two projects with one "bullet".
The funds drained in terms of Ethereum doesn't worth the trouble and reputation loss that comes with the forks. If they want to save DAO they should just suspend operations and fix all detected inadequacies. In any case the "hacker" will either cash out, so it will not affect for long time the Ethereum since there is some kind of PoS involved, or if he doesn't he will be able to provide some kind of leadership that Ethereum clearly lacks of.
I notice some people trying to draw parallels between the existing social structures, legal, economic, etc. and the ones currently in the making in the crypto world, especially on the level of principles and the philosophy that actually made it possible. Some of them even dismiss the whole "trustless" concept and support their fork case using nonsensical arguments, according to my opinion.
I believe it is just another example of the difficulty to prompt individuals think and act differently in a new context or framework that is crypto economy, as we are all born and raised in a legacy one.
I was never involved in the purchase of Ethereum or DAO for that reason. Despite all the fuzz about it, I was never convinced that the leadership is sound, along the economics foundation which clearly suffers. That for, I will not have an actual say in the process, thankfully. Still though, writting about it may influence other crypto developers avoid such mistakes.