1) Small projects, owned and maintained by a single person, with maybe a few random contributors.
2) Medium-sized projects maintained by handful of developers, without much organizational structure.
3) Large, almost enterprise-scale, projects used by thousands or millions of downstream users, maintained by dozens or hundreds of developers, requiring fairly complex organizational structure.
The article says that "instant you get that first contribution to your code, it becomes an open source project with an open source community of two", and the purpose of the project changes to "collaborating on the maintenance of the project".
For me, absolutely not. For most of my personal projects that I have open-sourced, I have no desire to migrate from a Type 1 (small, personal) project to a Type 2 (medium-sized, multiple-maintainers) project.
I accept PRs on a case-by-case basis, but I usually reject a vast majority of them: they are often buggy and incorrect, or they don't match the purpose and design of the project, or they are correct but severely incomplete (e.g. missing edge-cases, missing tests, missing documentation, etc). I have discovered that it usually takes me more time and effort to code-review the drive-by contributions into an acceptable state, than to just implement the feature myself.
On the other hand, for Type 3 (large, enterprise-scale) critical projects which affect numerous other parties, there is probably a higher level of implicit and social expectations that the project will handle bug reports and feature contributions from 3rd party contributors in a reasonable manner. The development process of a large project probably shouldn't rely on the whims and emotional state of a single maintainer on the project.
With regards to "kindness", which the article mentions a few times, I think for small projects, it might be reasonable to expect the kindness of the community. But for large projects, it is unrealistic that "kindness" will scale to thousands or millions of users. Too many people are too narcissistic, thoughtless, cruel, or all of the above.
In summary, it seems to me that the expectations and the dynamics of an open-source project varies quite a bit, possibly depending on the size and character of the project.