I don't think there is much evidence for this being part of a long term plan on his part to resist microsoft's influence. If that was the primary concern where

I don't think there is much evidence for this being part of a long term plan on his part to resist microsoft's influence. If that was the primary concern where was the criticism when his employer, The Linux Foundation, announced with great fanfare that they had released a microsoft ca signed boot loader to support linux uefi secure boot with the default oem trust setups. If there is anyone that has a chance at providing a FOSS UEFI signing alternative to Microsoft it's the Linux Foundation. But they're unwilling or unable to do it. Redhat is unwilling to and has proven they have trouble securing their signing keys. Canonical tried and failed to sell vendors on including a ubuntu key, and they weren't even looking to sign for other companies. There will soon be plenty of people running linux on their computers with secure boot enabled and relying on Microsoft's CA for a chain of trust. It's a done deal and no one is out there stepping up to provide a viable FOSS PKI alternative. The only thing being debated here is if many of them will be running rather slow and buggy video drivers.