There are degrees of democracy (as I think your comment rightly points out).
Maximum democracy in this case might be, the RFCs are written by anyone, work on features is started when people vote to start it, and there is widely distributed veto/filibuster power.
A bit less democracy might be that the maintainers select the ten proposals they feel are best, and put them to a vote for people to choose.
I just read a really good book on this topic called "10% Less Democracy". I'd highly recommend it. It shows how "maximum democracy" usually isn't the best setting, at least for governments. Their proposal for tax is interesting: write a 4-page bill in Congress that outlines the % of income to be collected, and maybe some amount each decile should pay, and an unelected tax body (like the IRS) figures out how to make that happen, as cheaply and transparently as possible.
I wouldn't describe the Rust processes as democracy. The team members are the ones to decide on RFCs, and they are not elected. Their "appointment" is more a meritocracy.
