Dmitry,
I don't think I'm emotional nor over reacting. I truly don't understand how I can lead a project in this process that I don't really understand how it's meant to work. I know it can be done, as there are many examples of projects that work well that way... just not ones that I've been involved with!
I'm not worried about rogue elements. I'm worried about factions that genuinely believe they are following the process, who think they have a consensus and merge... only for another faction that genuinely believes they are following the process and that they have a consensus to revert. You don't need bad actors for it to go off the rails. The histories of the servlet and HTTP specifications are littered with such disputes, so it is highly possible for new ones to emerge and as a leader in the EDP as described, I just don't feel armed with the tools I personally would need to address such disputes.
Personally I like having a structure that gives somebody both the responsibility and authority to resolve such factional differences by striving for a rough consensus and I just feel lost whenever there is no such structure and to me if feels like belligerence, oh I mean persistence can be over rewarded. Others appear to thrive in such an environment and I'm sure they can do a fine job of it. If I had realized initially that was the style of project the PMC wanted, I would never have agreed to be lead in the first place. Leading a process you don't understand how it's meant to work is a recipe for failure.
I'm not saying the process is wrong. I'm saying it is wrong for me and that there are more suitable people to lead. I'm happy to contribute on a technical basis as a committer and if the process is as you describe, then there is nothing I could do a leader that I can't do as a committer.
cheers