How exactly do you think an open source software project should be managed? People are going to have disagreements about changes, and there needs to be some method of adjudicating those disagreements. Democracy is near-impossible in those circumstances because key problems like suffrage (who counts as enough of a contributor to have a vote?) are hard to fix, and because actual technical expertise is important to decision-making.
Of course there will be disagreements, but no single person should have so much power as to block changes.
I have no particular care about HAML. But rather the notion that any piece of technology isn't in popular OSS like RoR because one person objects. I find that offensive.
Wikipedia is probably the best example of a project that's run democratically, by consensus at least, and the net result is that more effort is wasted on politicking than actually writing content.
The net result is that its useful, LOTS of content generated, and democratic. Arguing is part of a democracy. I don't mind it.
So benevolent dictatorship it is
For all the talk of freedom, this is disappointing.