That's a rather aggressive way of answering my question. I meant "who decided to let chromium disable view-source, and if this decision is unpopular, can it be reconsidered?".

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