> I don't think my interpretation is a stretch.

It isn't charitable and I don't think it adds to the discussion.

> Also, from a comment by the article author: "I feel that part of the problem with WordPress and Rails is that that there is no model for replacing poor governance."

He is explicitly calling out the lack of a governance replacement model, not calling out the failure to choose to step down by those leaders.

> Was there a Mastodon succession plan before Rochko unexpectedly stepped down?

No, but there should have been. What if he had been hit by a bus?

Not having governance and plans for sucession means that the only option for change is "non-peaceful" which means that when people think a change is required there will be problems. I would argue that many of these problems in these projects is caused more by this than by the particlar bad leaders.

> It isn't charitable

I think it's accurate. What's inaccurate about it?

Moreover, I think the article author would call for those leaders to step down if he thought that would be effective. After all, he called them "Mad Kings" and "tyrannical despots." Do you think the author wants Mad Kings to remain in power??? But of course the Mad Kings have no desire to step down, which is why forcible replacement would be the only option.

> He is explicitly calling out the lack of a governance replacement model

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Mastodon had a governance replacement model before Rochko chose to step down.

> No, but there should have been. What if he had been hit by a bus?

That's my point, though. Rochko wanted to step down, which forced Mastodon to come up with a succession plan. So I'm not sure why praise is due for this.

> Not having governance and plans for sucession means that the only option for change is "non-peaceful"

You ignored my question, though: "how do you know that Rails and WordPress don't already have their own succession plans?"