As far as I can tell, Nick Kalamatee Andrews is a man of amazing performance and competence. I think other mentioned and well-known developers who develop ABIv1 are not weaker. The user will vote for ABIv0 until he (the user) has the opportunity to actually use ABIv1 at his level. Here the problem is that AROS have stars, but developers are needed for simple (and uninteresting), monotonous and low-level work. This problem cannot be solved at the level of cool developers who are flooded with tickets. Now you had 50 tickets and now you have 100500+ tickets, what has changed? You now have 100500+ tickets...
I would rather believe that the number of ABIv0 users may grow for some reason, and this growth will give an impetus to the stabilization of ABIv1 (quantity turns into quality). Because out of every 100 users, 10 will be experienced and 1 developer.
Here is another problem: I cannot think of a reason for this growth or suggest how to create it. In general, it is clear that if (for example) on ABI0 there will be more gimmicks for the desktop, actual and working applications for high-quality emulation of other platforms, or some unique things useful for debugging, demoscene and retro-scene, then this will attract a certain number geeks. For example, if AROS has everything for developing for the ZX Spectrum, part of this scene may start using it instead of Windows because everything is in one place here. But in AROS and many (ported) applications are buggy or inoperable, and their contribution reaches 70%. There are not so many applications transferred from the Amiga. Therefore it turns out to be nothing more than a fantasy.
I'm also sure that very few people would switch to AROS because, for example, a blender and a lightwave appeared here. It also sounds fantastic. Real users of AROS are more specific. This does not mean that 3D is not needed, but its significance is exaggerated. Has the 3D-cube in the desktop greatly increased the number of MorphOS users? I don't think he influenced anything.
