I see where you're coming from, but I think your examples actually prove the opposite point.
I've always seen Linux and Git not as projects run by a committee, but as projects guided by a single, trusted leader. Linus Torvalds is the owner of the kernel's vision. He has the final say. That isn't community consensus; it's benevolent dictatorship.
So while the putty.org situation is shady, I believe the core idea is right: great software needs a final arbiter with a clear vision, not just a crowd.
I seriously doubt that they're talking about leadership when they say ownership. Otherwise it would make little sense because few foss projects are democracies anyway.
The thing is that this was his "answer" to what was really the quite reasonable question of "do you think this is ethical?" To start talking about this sort of thing is completely disconnected from the actual question.
Of course you can have discussion about these aspects of the open source ecosystem; this is a long-running discussion where many people have discussed and disagreed in good faith. I don't entirely agree with your take personally, but I also don't entirely disagree and can see where you're coming from, and it's of course an interesting thing to discus.
However, in this context, as an "answer" to that question, it's hard to see it as anything other than just self-serving post-hoc rationalisation for being a selfish wanker. This is classic nihilism where the abuse of everything and everyone is justified as long as you can get away with it. Everything that moves the needle and you can get away with is morally justified because it moves the needle and you can get away with it.
I can highly recommend https://mailbox.org/en/ . Based in Germany, complying to German data privacy laws. The smallest package is 1€/month with 2 GB storage for e-mails, 3 aliases, POP3/IMAP, calendar, address book, tasks.
There are also options for anonymous registration and payment.
They also have encryption built in: you can do PGP encryption in the webinterface. It also shows you whether there is working transport encryption (SMTP with TLS/STARTTLS) for each addressee.
This might sound like a marketing post but i am a highly satisfied customer and really like the service. I have catch-all addresses for +5 domains ("Office package") and everything works like a charm.
After having checked out their website, the one thing I don't like about them is how they say they'll reject spam before it reaches users' accounts (i.e. reach the spam folder or inbox). That sounds like a good thing in theory, but I've seen so many legitimate emails be marked as spam by aggressive spam systems that I fear losing legitimate emails if emails looking like spam are rejected and don't even reach the spam folder.
In my 1,5 years of usage I haven't encountered any incidents of missing mails. As I understand it they rely on greylisting which makes it infeasible for spammers.
There have been e-mails that took around 5 minutes to show up in my inbox, but this was mostly with "low-traffic-domains" and only for the first e-mail. Subsequent e-mails have been delivered instantly.
And: it's a really nice not to have to check one's spam folder every day for falsely marked legitimate mails. I am very happy with the automatic system.
I've always seen Linux and Git not as projects run by a committee, but as projects guided by a single, trusted leader. Linus Torvalds is the owner of the kernel's vision. He has the final say. That isn't community consensus; it's benevolent dictatorship.
So while the putty.org situation is shady, I believe the core idea is right: great software needs a final arbiter with a clear vision, not just a crowd.