If you elect to take part in a closed source project, then you are freely agreeing that the dev team are ultimately in control and have the final say on every aspect of the code. Like it or not, that simply isn't the case here. Bitcoin is open source. It's undeniably a free and open market because alternative clients are right now competing for both hashrate and node count, anyone can modify the code at will, without permission, and users are free to decide on what code they choose to run. It's the absolute epitome of freedom and liberalism. If you can't handle that, maybe Bitcoin is not what you thought it was.
If that was true, how did unknown or new developers ever get their code into Bitcoin? Answer: they wrote good code. It may be open source, but that doesn't mean anyone can change the original, far from it.
Original code can be forked, but trying to argue that a software network is the same thing as the code base is mindless stuff.
The code repo (and every other code repo)
is private property. Only certain people have access. That's a working definition of what property actually is. But the Bitcoin network is openly accessible by anyone. Why are you confusing the two so consistently?
Your argument essentially says that any 5 year old with a GitHub account should be able to change the code. Not. The. Case. There is a peer review process, and the contingent you're cheerleading for got drubbed in that peer review process, because their suggestion were (likely deliberate) garbage.
The meritocracy has spoken, and your team's ideas didn't make it. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.