I've never really understood the "architect" role, maybe because I've always stumbled across poor architects, but I generally don't agree it is a good practice

I've never really understood the "architect" role, maybe because I've always stumbled across poor architects, but I generally don't agree it is a good practice for someone to make decisions (architecture) and not deal with consequences (actually code within this architecture). Those decisions should be left for team to make and, yes, opinion of more experienced devs should be weighted more, but everyone should have a right to speak. Something that connects with above statement: most architects are involved only at the beginning, which is so unimaginably stupid considering the fundamental truth about software development which is: "requirements will change". Personally, if I hear from recruiter that they havea an architect in team I always say "thank you, but no thank you".