If open source projects operate as a meritocracy then why do they often develop so much politics? Projects often have a leader - I can understand why, someone needs to make the final decision or commit. These leaders come to the top because of their ability. However, when the leader stops having any interest in the project it seems to me that people are very wary of saying "X hasn't done anything for six months and is killing the project, Y (or I) want to be in charge". Here's advice to you: stop being touchy-feely about open source politics and JFDI.
(In some respect, this applies to companies too: salary should be linked to profit for the company rather than number of meetings or underlings).