Slow down, I don't think I've done a single thing about "trust."
That's still a social problem.
What I want is that the mechanical process of doing code reviews, accepting pull requests, and orchestrating the Access Control Lists, and the membership of them, can be implemented by the code repo.
Rather than giving unfettered power to a small list of owners, who could literally do anything to the repo. And if they all get hit by the same bus, then we're SOL.
Heck, I want a Deadman Switch, too. If Github doesn't hear from me in 90 days, even after emailing me to get my attention, then ownership of this repo should be assigned to this other person. If that fails, on to this other person, etc.
"only a fool would believe a bunch of codified rules spread across a couple of software functions could ever perfectly mediate the complexities of a community of people in every possible scenario."
Or someone who has experienced such a system at a company, and wishes the rest of the world had similar functions.
Note that I'm happy to allow for escape hatches... Such as we could always Fork the repo.
"What if 51%"
Then I fork the repo.
What do you do if the 1 single owner of a repo turns out to be a fanatic?
You and twenty other people all fork the repo, and then debate ensues about who is the One True Repo.
I'm suggesting that there's a smarter way to handle the problem of a small number of people having absolute power over our repos.
And if you're smart, you leave in a provision for completely changing the governance, in case you screw it up. Or you just fork. Like we do today.