[eMerzh]

It's me or a lot of those points don't explain anything? I totally get they don't want to open source it as a company but don't try to give false reason for it.

It's not because it's open source that you can't have quality, central design, or good documentation.

[r3bl]

It's not like anyone can push code to your project once you open source it, you're still the gatekeeper that decides which PR gets accepted and which one does not.

I could understand the argument that sifting through the pull requests would take them too much time that they could spend doing something else, but at least 8/12 of these could be solved by... you know, properly maintaining an open source project.

The article leads me to the conclusion that they have no intention of letting the community drive the company, and I could totally understand that. I don't see how any of the listed reasons could prevent them from making their code source-available without indicating an open source license.