... I think that in a decentralized system, one cannot talk (by definition) of a "community" because we are supposed to have an eco system of non-colluding entities, contrary to most open source software, for instance, where "community", "cooperation" and "leadership" have a meaning. The whole idea of a decentralized system is to have antagonist entities that cannot collude over any change, because any change is in the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others, given that it is a system with on-purpose scarcity and competition. You cannot have a "community" in a competitive free market either ; every form of significant collusion is called a cartel.
The central definition of "community" is like-mindedness. The fact that competitors are opposing forces doesn't negate that they have certain like-minded goals, aspirations, and views. While the ecosystem may involve you vs me, we share the same interest that we want Bitcoin to be a success. To that end, we do what we must to do what we want. Not all compromise is collusion (which by definition involves secretiveness and/or deceit).
Even when our goals, aspirations, and views are not like-minded, we are in the community of those who wish to use Bitcoin, see Bitcoin succeed, and/or wish to make Bitcoin better to further either the former or the latter.