I honestly don't get the 'community' bit. Who gets to decide what is NIH, what is duplication of effort, fragmentation and what is 'good' for the 'community'?

I honestly don't get the 'community' bit. Who gets to decide what is NIH, what is duplication of effort, fragmentation and what is 'good' for the 'community'? Who do these individuals speak for? Which community? There is no organized overarching community in Linux. Are they speaking for Debian, Redhat, Fedora, Suse, Mint, Ubuntu, Elementary, specific projects? They should clearly articulate who they represent. This looks like hijacking the 'community' to push personal preferences. I am beginning to feel there is a serious undercurrent of bad actors in the open source ecosystem who are threatened by anything not from that they perceive as 'their community'. For instance I don't see any knives sharpened by all these 'community' advocates for Flatpak when it is preceded by Ubuntu Snap. In this case no one is harassing Redhat and Fedora about NIH, duplication of effort, fragmentation and pressuring Flatpak developers to join hands with Ubuntu. Why the double standards? Wen it comes to Mir or Unity it is completely out of control. And its only when I decided to overlook the bad press to actually try Unity that I realized its by far the most polished desktop on Linux in 20 years. This kind of organized hatchet job is a serious loss for open source. Its too self serving and political and I suggest anyone presuming to speak for the community should be immediately treated with suspicion.