If someone wants to upgrade the Bitcoin network, they need to get the consensus of different stakeholders in the community. If there is no consensus, it is easy to cause the division of the community. This is the decentralization of community governance.
What you noted above sounds like a disadvantage or a drawback to the decentralized system, but you treated it as a compliment. What happens if such scenario repeats often and curses more frequent division in the system. What would be the fate of the decentralized system or bitcoin.
In fact, this is not to say that this is a shortcoming of a decentralized system, we can only say that it is more difficult to establish a consensus on a decentralized system. We now live in a society controlled by a centralized system. The consensus here is generally enforced by the centralized system through war, military, financial, legal and other forces. However, the consensus of a decentralized system is completely different. It is based on established mathematical algorithms. The rules are transparent and fair to everyone. To establish a consensus, everyone needs to truly approve the system, and it cannot be enforced by external forces. That's why I said that building such a consensus requires a higher degree of difficulty and must be widely recognized. If there is no widespread recognition, it is easy to form divisions.