Yes it is inconvenient to do traditional OO programming with JavaScript, but I'm not convinced that is a bad thing. Encouraging subclassing, as pointed out by the author, could actually be detrimental.
I am bit concerned that the standard committee is going to make the language worse while trying to fix it.
Dont want to use any ES6 new syntax, dont use it. And yes , the committee SHOULD meet developpers demands as much as possible. Javascript has no clear paradigm,everything should be on the table.
Everyone has their biases, and my bias would be to embrace the dynamic and functional aspects of the languages that separate it from Java, rather than creating new syntax that pastes over the fact that the language is fundamentally different.
FWIW I'm with you: I think that treating JS as a functional language is a cleaner fit that crowbar-ing OOP into it.
Our decision is to deal with JS on it's own terms. Clojurescript would be appealing if it didn't involve an AOT compiler (and one that's not trivial to set up in Windows)