There are a number of reasons why that perspective is broken; throughout our conversations others have repeatedly reminded you (such as in -wizards) that forking an open-source repository is not at all like a hard-fork of the blockchain. Anyone can be glorious leader of any repository they want, that's how open-source works. However, it's critical that bitcoin users are never convinced to trust BDFLs or anything else that can be compromised. Should all bitcoin users suddenly start using software with BDFLs, even multiple implementations with separate BDFLs, then those users can be trivially compromised through their trust in those individuals and projects.

The alternative is that every developer and every user is personally responsible for self-validation of the rules, checking for correctness and validity. Happy coincidence that this seems to match the strategy of operating the bitcoin network itself, which is to run a node that sees everything and validates all the transactions. Anyone is able to find an error in logic or flaw in the system rules, and they should make it known as widely as possible so that others may evaluate the evidence and consider which solutions preserve the important properties of the system. This is not a matter of majorities or minorities; these arguments should be true for anyone independent of who or what they are, or what level of unpopularity they may have.

Anything other than this is somewhat radical, and I am confused as to why others have been talking about "developer consensus". I suspect that the reason why they have been saying developer consensus is because they are talking about the Bitcoin Core project on GitHub at the moment. But the topic switched to contentious hard-forks already, which is not a topic of repositories but a topic of the blockchain and network; and in the context of contentious hard-forks it is clear why everyone individually must evaluate the rules and decide whether they the software is correct, or whether changes can trivially cause catastrophic broken hard-forks. These lines of reasoning should be true for everyone, and not merely true for one person but not another. Users, companies and developers must be aware of this, even though it's different from their usual expectations of how systems operate and are maintained. And it is important to be careful to not misconstrue this to others because it is entirely possible to unintentionally convince others that traditional and centralized models are safely applicable here.

Well, if you're talking about the recent disputes regarding a certain patch to hard-fork the blockchain, a decision to not include such a patch seems like the very definition of a decision.

I doubt that other bitcoin software maintainers would agree with that sort of toxic reasoning; contentious hard-forks are basically a weapon of war that you can use against any other collaborator on any bitcoin project. Why would anyone want to collaborate on such a hostile project? How would they even trust each other?