A lot of this is true. Imo any open source project makes less progress without a leader, someone who steers the ship and has the final say. Bitcoin core is at a point where core devs just want to avoid all controversy and stay silent and let people fight out. We need more versions of core in other programming languages built from the ground up and implement all consensus rules similar to btcd. Bitcoin core needs more competing implementations where you have leaders who are willing to hit the merge button and publish a release with CTV for example so that people can run the fucking thing.
Discussion
I don’t have a problem with competing implementations, but the ones that already exist (btcd, libbitcoin) have a rough time staying in consensus and gaining any traction. Not their fault, just a function of Satoshi not releasing a formal specification with the code and white paper.
In any case, I don’t see that as an impediment to proposing a soft fork. A patched version of Bitcoin Core with CTV has existed for years. You just have to convince economic nodes to run it.
There is nothing wrong with Bitcoin Core maintainers focusing on non-consensus features and maintenance and let forked clients lead consensus changes. There is a historical precedent, with the initial Segwit client.
FWIW, I don’t see a technical consensus on which direction to go. If an interesting group of graybeards and economic nodes have a concrete proposal and a client, I would give it serious consideration.