Since it's not clear from your question, I just want to point out that a gatekeeper workflow is by no means required with git. It's popular with open source projects because of the large number of untrusted contributors, but doesn't make as much sense within an organization. You have the option to give everyone push access if you want.
What people are neglecting in this analysis is that good programmers spend a lot of time dealing with other programmers' broken code anyway. If everyone has push access, then the build will get broken, and the best programmers tend to be the ones frequently integrating and tracking down the culprits when things break.
The thing about everyone having push access is that when something breaks, everyone who pulls gets a broken build until the offending commit is reverted or fixed. With a gatekeeper workflow, only the gatekeeper is affected. In other words, you are affecting only one of your best programmers instead of all of them.
It might turn out that your code quality is fairly high and the cost-benefit ratio of a gatekeeper is still not worth it, but don't neglect the familiar costs. Just because you are accustomed to that productivity loss doesn't mean it isn't incurred.
Also, don't forget to explore hybrid options. It's very easy with git to set up a repository that anyone can push to, then have a gatekeeper like a senior developer, tester, or even an automated continuous integration server decide if and when a change makes it into a second, more stable repository. That way you can get the best of both worlds.
Best Answer
TFS gadgets:
See http://www.gregcons.com/KateBlog/SidebarGadgetsForTFS.aspx - it's about two years old, so ignore the Vista comments.