> 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?"