Furthermore Bitcoin Core is under the control of a single person, Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not after all.
Yep, there is no other sensible way of doing it. I'm happy with Wladimir, you seem to think Mike Hearn would be a good alternative. You're entitled to your opinion, but both the miners and the users have rejected that.
There is another way to do this. Which is to have multiple implementations which different people are in charge off, this would decentralize development in the sense that a single person would no longer be in control of what goes into the latest version of Bitcoin that most people are using.
There cannot be two competing designs within the same single piece of software, it simply does not work that way.
In Bitcoin when there is a fundamental disagreement it can split, whether caused by a majority or minority is even irrelevant. It does not matter how much you believe consensus can be forced on people it is simply not how Bitcoin works, whether a "technical authority" agrees or not.
The idea you're trying so hard not to explicitly support for months now has been rejected. Roundly. Help us all out and do something productive instead of yet more of your shamelessly bizarre double-think-as-an-argument output ad nauseum. You're not saying anything new, or anything that's gaining an audience.
You do not speak for the countless more people that are reading this thread. The simple idea that I support is that I want to increase the blocksize and I do not "trust" Core to do so in time. Whether this idea has been rejected is up to each individual to decide and time will tell who is on the right side of history.