Would that not also suggest poor leadership/stewardship? Open sourcing something shouldn't suddenly mean that a community turns up and takes over the project with unreasonable or out-of-scope demands.
You can be open source without requesting contributions or building a tribe around it. You can be open source and say no to things you don't like: go ahead and fork and adapt it to your own needs.
No.
It suggests open source is simply non-trivial to get right and requires a lot of time and effort that isn't always well spent doing that when you first start out. Time you spend on that is time you spend not on your product. I would strongly suggest you choose one or the other (IE either do a good job of it or don't do it at all).
I also think you are vastly oversimplifying this.
You also seem to have an interesting view of what happens when you open source stuff that is not at all consistent with what i've seen over the past 20+ years across a variety of projects.
But YMMV, of course.
You can be open source without requesting contributions or building a tribe around it. You can be open source and say no to things you don't like: go ahead and fork and adapt it to your own needs.