I think if your idea about decentralizing can accurately be described as fragmenting, then it’s probably not a good thing. I don’t know anybody that wants to ha

I think if your idea about decentralizing can accurately be described as fragmenting, then it’s probably not a good thing. I don’t know anybody that wants to have multiple separately maintained versions of the same project. When I use a piece of software, I want to have a good idea about how it will behave. I want to pick a project that I can be somewhat assured is fit for purpose, and that will provide stability. That’s why people investing in maintaining and using the most widely used and adequately maintained projects. If I don’t like the direction maintainers are taking a project in, then I can fork it. If enough people feel the same way as I do, then that fork might also become widely used and adequately maintained. There’s plenty of examples of exactly that happening, and I can’t see anything that’s undemocratic about it. Regarding having a centralised service like github, I can’t see how that impacts the democraticness of anything at all. I can pull from it, I can push to it, I can fork on it. The centralizedness of it doesn’t seem to have any impact on participation to me. It just seems to be a matter of convenience. The less places I have to look for the thing I want, the better my experience is.