Those kind of issues, while useful for well-behaved people, are often magnets for the kinds of people who yell "look! People have been asking for this for 201X, why are you ignoring your users!"
If most users have wanted X for years but the developer instead spent her energy implementing Y and Z that noone else cares about, that begs questions like how are features prioritized ("based on what I want to work on" is a valid answer but needs to be explicit) and who the software is for ("me but sure you guys can tag along and use it for free I guess" is a valid answer but needs to be explicit)
Maybe some of those users who have wanted feature X for years would be happy to pool some cash to make it happen if given the opportunity.
Building a tool that works juuuuust enough for people to set it up and start relying on it, and then never ever fixing the most salient and impactful bugs because "people aren't entitled anything after all" is just wrong.
It would be much more honest to state up front that said tool should not be relied on for any use beyond one's hobby, that it will not be supported, and that the whole package is just "up there" for anyone interested, without any guarantee. And no, having that written in the default LICENSE file is not sufficient.
Honestly, it doesn't even need to be explicit, they just need to not be actively implying otherwise. (Eg, like gnome/gtk from the sibling thread.)
2. "Aight I step up to maintain the feature"
I seriously don't understand the expectant attitude of some users. You get what you pay for.
I find it funny how often FOSS advocates extoll the virtues of FOSS, only to turn around and silence complaint with statements like "what do you want for free?".
It doesn't hurt to write down the thought process. Of course some people can't be appeased and no reasonable explanation will be sufficient.