You're saying that if the community decides they want something that is very bad for performance, Schema should ignore the community?
What if the community decides they want something that is bad for profit/sales; or would take far too much development time; or has legal issues (patents, whatever) - Schema should ignore the community for those cases too?
There's working with the community (e.g. a dictatorship where the dictator has some kind of advisor that that gathers and summarises feedback); which is mostly what we have. Then there's attempting to achieve consensus (e.g. a true democracy where everyone has a say in every decision), where Schema spends all day arguing with shit-posters and doesn't have time to touch any of the code.
I'm not saying that the way things are now is ideal - a little more communication between the community and developers would be useful (and not just developers listening to the community, but also the developers providing more information to the community - e.g. there was another pre-release recently and nobody has any idea what changed), I'm just saying that "listening to the community" can be far worse.
Role players said "we want to force everyone to have space for crew", so the developers listened to the community and created "power 2.0". Then the community said "LOLs, we don't want disconnected blob ships", so the developers listened to the community and added reactor streams.
I mean, you have to admit that there's at least a small chance that maybe the community are morons?