I probably missed the point, but open source is a license granted by a copyright holder. It's orthogonal to any project structure. If there's a collaboration of any kind, it would take place under a separate agreement, it's not part or the open source license. But it seems like the article is talking about some hypothetical project structure and criticizing it...
That's exactly the point they make in their first paragraph.
They then speculate about why others nonetheless presume themselves entitled to something beyond a license to see, edit, and use the code themselves; and spend the essay trying to explain why those people may find themselves frustrated by open source maintainers who haven't made any such commitment to them.
It's probably too aggressive an essay to land on the ears of those who need to hear it, but it's making exactly the case you do yourself.
