I think you may have some core assumption that open source software has a voting system when none really exists and it’s either a committee or a corporation that gives no voting rights whatsoever. Participation instead gets things in when your are both trusted and the governance approves.
if you're invisible your vote doesn't count anywhere ....
Your local policy is yours, but in much the same way that I don't think it's a good idea for an OS provider to provide a single, easy-to-use button saying "spy on this user who I pinky-swear is a member of my family under 18 and tell me everything they do and where their mobile is", an option to permit the disabling of view-source in a mainstream browser does not fit easily with me. I accept that there might be some situations in which you'd want to do it, but honestly it's the thin-edge of the wedge.
"Benign dictatorship" is a common form of open-source project governance; it's not unreasonable to expect that is the case here (with Google, or a part of it, as the dictator). That being said, many open-source projects are managed in a way other than "benign dictatorship". Debian, for example, famously uses the Condorcet method [1] if there are any significant ideological disputes; see this vote [2] about Richard Stallman for an example.
To my mind, a browser supporting -- in whatever form -- an option to disallow "view-source" could well be a controversial enough decision to necessitate a vote through this means. I don't know how Chromium is governed, and all I meant to do was ask how.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method [2] https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002#outcome