It’s better but not optimal.

Without the real world incentive of a commercial budget and an ROI development focus, projects will always be casually managed and waste people’s time.

No one person is responsible for the cost involvement because everyone is paying the bills. This shows up in the casual direction-setting that let "Features-as-Plugins" waste so much of everyone's time, energy and cost.

Simply to transition [rename] Into "Features-as-Projects" isn't the solution in and of itself.

A much better approach is to have a more focused way of thinking out loud before direction is set. And the conclusions should be tested before anyone starts writing code of any description, except perhaps for a wireframe or two.

Perhaps a useful proxy for figuring out which projects should get the love ~ and which should get the order of the boot ~ would be to crowdfund them all and see who is willing to put their money on the line for this or that feature/enhancement/fix/whatever?

And by the way, this problem has been around for years and not only in the open source world. Stuff gets developed by clever developers who found it interesting to develop, but when they saw only a handful of people installed it, didn't want to support it over the long term.

Which is one reason why the repo has so many dead bodies.

Changing the name is good, so long as the focus shifts to thinking and market testing before doing.