Maybe a bit of an unpopular opinion here, but I still think the benevolent dictator is the way to go for open-source projects. If you are unhappy with how things are handled, fork it and do better.
However, there's probably a cutoff point for core infrastructure where we should move away from having a single person in charge.
> Maybe a bit of an unpopular opinion here, but I still think the benevolent dictator is the way to go for open-source projects. If you are unhappy with how things are handled, fork it and do better.
If I start a project that attracts contributors[1], I don't see anything wrong with rejecting someone's CoC "contribution" with "I am the code of conduct. We don't need another one."
==================
[1] I try not to do that, btw.
"I am the law!" :D
> If you are unhappy with how things are handled, fork it and do better.
Yes, but often the projects where this happens are just big enough to where one person cannot realistically maintain their own fork to the same level that users will expect if they are looking to jump ship.
What I've seen happen more often than not, is even if the person does attempt a fork, they either get constantly attacked by existing users, or stop working on it within a year, or both.