If you want to create and maintain a community that's fine, maybe even great. TFA is just pointing out that the presence of an OSS license is not an implicit signal that the project is interested in any such community. They're separate things, and my read is that the author is frustrated with the constant conflating of the two. It's not an attack on your values at all.

If you personally are willing to invest more, to dedicate attention and effort to every user/contributor/member of the opensource community you are maintaining, then that is great, and does not even conflict with the essay at all.

The only point is that all the time that you and other selfless maintainers are spending on their projects is not something that anyone is entitled to; it's a gift, not a duty.

To actually conflict witht the essay you would need to hold that any developer that ever publishes a piece of software is not only duty-bound to maintain it forever, but also to engage with every potential (crackpot) user or collaborator, and that's simply not a defensible perspective to me.

I think "Open source is a licensing and delivery mechanism, period." is a statement that bears repeating.

It comes down to beggars asking skilled people for free labor. If the "community" really wants something, they can send a pull request.