Looking at the broader context, it seems that the foundation simply considered the projects as "theirs" in some key ways, honestly thought the migration was best for the projects, and so opted for a mechanism that would be quick and easy for everyone. From that point of view, you could even argue that bothering busy maintainers to get them to approve some minor housekeeping was just a waste of time...especially if you believe - as the foundation seemed to - that this change was both helpful and properly the foundations responsibility and not the maintainers.
Obviously, that viewpoint was not shared by the maintainers! And, thankfully, the foundation has now repudiated it, but if you take their statements at face value, I see nothing strange about how they did it.