As a developer (not affiliated with either of those projects), you have to understand a couple of points:
-
Adding features means increased maintenance burden. Any feature that is added must be tested and maintained, and once released, often cannot be changed without significant user push back.
-
Users often have no idea what they actually want. If a project just implements what every user asks for, it’ll end up being a disjointed mess of a project. Developers have to draw a line somewhere.
-
Unless someone is paying for the work, developers have zero incentive to make changes. A democratic committee can make all the requests they like, but unless the developers are on board, nothing will happen. (Also, tying into 2, but good luck getting a committee of users to agree on anything)
The only real answer is to fork the software, make the changes and hope that either everyone switches to your fork, or the upstream accepts the changes. That is the Open Source way of doing things.
Requirements gathering is really really difficult, and its why I am currently not worried about an LLM taking my job.
For my work, I had a project where the requirements were gathered for us, which stated that A was completely forbidden, but X, Y and Z were required. We developed to that spec, released it, and it turned out that the users actually needed A all along. We added A, and now A is the only feature they use… Shame, because X, Y and Z were cool features, and I was really proud of them, but a complete waste of time developing them.