When I first heard about open source in the mid 90s, I thought "that can't possibly work with no leader" because I thought that writing to the repository was open to anyone. I wondered if maybe then someone would stress test a revision and if it was good enough, sign off on it as the most recommended version to download. So basically there would be no "current" version, that one would be this evolving hodgepodge out ahead of the one most people used. I guess I envisioned it working kind of like evolution, so the best versions would split and merge again like reproduction and the most fit version would rise to the top.

So on some level I think open source has actually failed, because it didn’t work out that way. Instead there seems to usually be a handful of maintainers who allow certain patches to go in, but if there’s too much of a disagreement, we end up with a fork, never to be merged again. The burden on that handful of people is so high that on some level I'm amazed anyone ever takes on the infinite support liability of starting an open source project in the first place.

Just out of total curiosity, does anyone know of any other ways of organizing open source, I mean from decades ago when it was first getting started? Were there ever any successful projects that were more organic, where a greater portion of the contributors or even all of them could make changes? Did they devolve into anarchy or did they work?

Update: I didn't expect this to be down voted, perhaps it was my poor choice of wording. What I meant to say was "So on some level I think open source has failed to live up to its original vision of open contribution leading to viable software".