But here's the thing: He DID become a leader, mostly because of his confrontational nature and strength of conviction (which is how most leaders for change do things - they step on lots of toes). He DID lead these organisations (rocky or not - doesn't matter) and they DID become a strong force in the software world. To call him unsuitable for a leadership position is just ignoring history and his ability to attract followers.
You may not like him as a person. You may be creeped out by him. You may dislike a lot of what he says and does (and really, who doesn't?). But removal without due process flies in the face of everything that makes us civilised. The normal process is to issue warnings/rules with consequences, and then implement those consequences when they're ignored. This is how we do things fairly - a shot across the bow first. The alternative is mob rule and capricious, changing ex-post-facto justice, which has time and time again been demonstrated to never end well.