[tkel]

BDFL is worse for all the reasons you mention.

Stability? A BDFL can make decisions at a whim that radically destabilize and change the project. Lording over and causing immense harm to the community without any sort of accountability is a recipe for disaster.

Good for everyone? A BDFL can unilaterally make decisions that prioritize their own desires over everyone else. It becomes about their personality rather than the project.

Functional? A BDFL is less functional, seeing how there is no requirement that the BDFL do anything that the community of people actually wants.

If you're saying you're opposed to democracy because you don't like the decision that codeberg reached democratically, the BDFL can do the exact same thing. Except the process is far worse, because there is literally no input from anyone else on making the decision.

[iamnothere]

You can say all these things, and yet my experience with BDFLs in reality has been the opposite. More often, they make good decisions that continue their vision for the project, rather than abruptly redirecting the project. This is because productive people are often relatively consistent in their vision and direction.

Small community “democracy” OTOH often devolves into ochlocracy, or reactive mob rule. Small communities are easily swayed, don’t often have a durable vision, and can easily be infiltrated by people who don’t have the best interest of the project (or the users) at heart.

The only thing that can offset these effects is a heavy process, like Debian has, which slows down the mob and forces everyone to consider all sides of the issue. This can actually work! And for some projects it’s a better fit than a BDFL.