The whole point of bitcoin is to provide people a currency that have no central governance. If you don't like it simply don't use it.

join LN and have atleast 7 types of fee's and the ability to chargeback the entire contents of the multisig even when the close session has been broadcast. (CSV revoke codes)

It's not the governance model itself that sucks, but peoples' understanding of it.  If you feel dissenting views or alternative implementations are a threat, you need to rethink your stance.  The bigger threat is centralised development and users having no alternative but to run the only "approved" code available.  If all developers were forced to agree, that means all users would have no choice but to agree as well.  There should be no "harmony" in this regard, because that's far more dangerous in the long run.

Can everyone please get the concept into their heads that alternatives and choice are not only a good thing, but a vital thing.  Dissent is our safety net.  Never think you're better off without it.

For Bitcoin to truly remain trustless, we can't place trust in a centralised group (and definitely not a CEO).  It's down to the users who secure the network to determine what code they want to run.  Not a single group deciding for everyone what that code should be.  If there's no alternative, there's no point in even having a consensus mechanism to begin with and you should just abandon the whole damn thing.

If you don't want the "open wild, wild west of consensus", go play with Ripple or some other bankster crapcoin where you don't get a choice about what the code does.  But stop trying to force that warped mentality on the rest of us.

I would rather have bitcoin the way it is rather than having a CEO or anything like it.  You do realise that you can leave bitcoin at anytime if it annoys you that much ?  

decentralisation is here to stay, and all those who love freedom will choose a decentralised environment over a controlled one.

Pissing contests will continue until one side gives up or gives in.
This is how most human governance systems work.
It will either be a congress with discussions and fighting and slow change or
a dictatorship with changes at the whim of a glorious leader.

Technically speaking there is no need to even have any form of governance or development, there is no real necessary need to have anyone developing it beyond people wanting for Bitcoin to be developed more. If there was no desire, Bitcoin would carry on without any issues being fixed and no-one would have to worry about being governed.

Consensus is a terrible system, but there are no good alternatives. A large majority of forms of governance suck ass.

Why are you so angry?

There are some issues,but i`m sure they are going to be resolved.

Who do you suggest for a CEO?

When we speak of governance we speak of centers. The word bitcoin governance means that there are people who are controlling and has a rule on bitcoin. Bitcoin is in fact free from any governance, thats why we are all saying it is a decentralized system because it has no center an no one is controlling it. So to say that governance sucks is not the right term but the term should be " bitcoin is free from governance".