I’m sure many long-time Fedora users get used to it over time. My worry is with first-time Fedora users, whose first encounter with official Fedora resources is via the home page. There they can find an elegant and professional-looking website (kudos to the team), yet a couple of clicks away they land on Fedora’s main documentation page, where they suddenly become confused and probably can’t explain the setback.
The survey in that thread is as valid today as it was 2 years ago. I think it’s better to have content completely removed than to keep it outdated. I don’t consider such actions to show lack of respect and appreciation to the contributors of those (now obsolete) pages, even though I start to believe this might be one of the reasons why these pages are still there.
This approach could work when there are lots of contributors to choose from. Yet when we’re facing the lack of volunteers, we need to adapt. It’s not that the volunteers get to choose the tools, but it is good to listen to their needs, as to be able to provide those tools (and procedures, sets of rules) which ensure higher adherence.
Overall, in response to the issue raised by this topic, I think defining one centralized documentation team/body (as opposed to different WGs and SIGs) would help correct the current fragmentation issues (and redundance, obsolescence) in documentation.