Communities Need Strong Leadership, Not Dictators Like IBM
Just before the end of this year's first half Manchester City got a new coach, who is actually a returnee. A familiar face. Leadership of the team matters because if the players lack respect for their coach, they won't give it "100%" and morale will communally be reduced (it is infectious when players quit caring and only want to collect salaries). Some of them try to "sell themselves" by boasting (dribbling, excessive and irresponsible hoarding) instead of placing the interest of the whole team. They cease to become team players.
Leadership in Free software is not ownership; leaders don't own people and they don't own projects, they merely speak to them or make key decisions (e.g. what patches to accept, which to reject or amend). Sometimes decisions need to be made: code refactoring, new features, support for older system etc.
Leadership that is potent and fair will find the right balance and not behave selfishly. The selfless projects last longer because the "ego trips" of key people don't ruin the project or lead to avoidable infighting.
At the moment Fedora is a dying (and fake) community. Fedora is just controlled by a dictatorship that sells us scams like "slop" ("hey hi") and "quantum". Fedora will only last as long as IBM can somehow make some money out of it or leverage it to attract sharecropping (or unpaid IBM work by volunteers). █