I'm not saying I think the maintainers have any obligation to do things for me (I tried to make that clear in the original comment). What I was really trying to say is that I don't think this model would apply well to most projects, as the GP was saying.
To take an exaggerated example, if I tried to use this model with any of my small OSS side projects, the only result would be that no one would contribute. This model means that the development of the project is going to be almost entirely driven by:
a) The original maintainers of the project (who will rightfully get bored of maintaining it at some point), and
b) The handful of companies that have financial interest in a certain bug/feature.
Again, that's probably fine for projects like Fody, but certainly not all of OSS.
To take an exaggerated example, if I tried to use this model with any of my small OSS side projects, the only result would be that no one would contribute. This model means that the development of the project is going to be almost entirely driven by:
a) The original maintainers of the project (who will rightfully get bored of maintaining it at some point), and
b) The handful of companies that have financial interest in a certain bug/feature.
Again, that's probably fine for projects like Fody, but certainly not all of OSS.