I’ll try to address everything as well as I can, not point by point, but addressing the main points each of you is making. I think anything else would be counter-productive.
I think it’s maybe you that misunderstood me. I don’t for a minute doubt your intentions, I know that you do what you do because you want to help and contribute (and you do). But that is not the point I was making.
What we have here is a user who is providing feedback (this is the way I’m seeing it). Instead of trying to understand why he misunderstood what he misunderstood (assuming it’s just a matter of misunderstanding and not an actual problem on OH’s design/architecture), you’re just telling him it’s his fault for not reading the docs. When he said he did, you told him he didn’t read them “well” (maybe he doesn’t have the “capacity” to understand them well enough? It could be read that way). And then you insisted he didn’t even click the link you posted (let alone read it), although he had but was STILL having trouble/doubts. Again, his fault, I guess.
Regardless, as I said in my original post, all of the above are absolutely FINE. As long as we agree that OH is just what it is today and not trying to be something more/better. Only then and only in that light are your comments “unacceptable” as I called them. Otherwise you’re just a forum member that “comes across as terse and in some respects rude”. You have every right to be.
I think your reply illustrates the problem very well. What you’re basically saying is that not one of my points/“complaints” is valid and everything around OH is as good as it possibly could. Maybe that’s true, but I have my doubts. So do others.
Regarding the first part, maybe you are right (and also @Andrew_Rowe). I still have some thoughts/concerns but I’ll not analyze them here, I might come back with some thoughts at a later stage.
Regarding the second part, there’s nothing in what you’re saying that I don’t understand or didn’t already know. But to me, what you’re describing is a perfect illustration of the lack of leadership problem that I mentioned. Having individual users contributing and voicing their own thoughts/ideas is perfectly fine, but doesn’t help towards the goal I described. Besides individual users, there should be some with more authority (call them “team members”, “staff”, “moderators”, doesn’t matter) who set the tone, listen to user feedback, keep things within limits and provide direction.
Again (sorry for repeating myself but I want it to become 100% clear), I’m not saying it has to be that way. As long as we (and the project’s leadership, above all) agree that we want to maintain OH’s status quo and are not trying to take it to the next level.