This is extremely comprehensive and well thought out - if Index Coop is able to inspire this level of passion in community members we are winning. 
We are talking about a few different things here and blurring definitions - maybe this breakdown is helpful.
Community Member: Owns $Index, participates on Discord and the Forums, helps brings Index Coop products to larger audiences, attends some calls, etc.
Contributor: Active member of a working group, attends all meetings, doing meaningful non-trivial work for the Coop, has spent a significant amount of time in the community etc.
This separation is relatively fluid. Generally everyone starts as a community member and then progresses to greater and greater levels of involvement until they are making meaningful contribution to an established working group. This process takes time and is hard work.
Being able to contribute legitimate high-level work for a DAO requires sophistication and context. There is a reason many of our strongest community members come from very successful careers in other industries 
. It takes more than a few weeks to fully understand what is going on at IC, and even longer to start successful contributions.
@LemonadeAlpha makes a good point here and raises valid concerns. Some of our working groups are starting to operate at a very high level. This is only possible if they are tight and cohesive teams. The LA Lakers don’t add large numbers of new players during the playoffs.
I feel like @verto0912 does a good job of summing up these concerns and open questions below.
In my eyes all these questions come down to context and oversight. Work done by community members by design requires low-context and low-oversight. Systems like Impression Mining enable individuals to contribute while taking comparatively little time away from the core WGs and Coop leaders.
On the other hand, work done by contributors requires high context and high - oversight. For example our Business Development Working Group runs best when made up of a small team of contributors working closely together. Because these are complex enterprise level initiatives they do not scale linearly based on man-power. This has been a big learning experience for me.
We should strive to decentralize as much of the community work as possible. In an ideal future the majority of our community work will happen through programs like Impression Mining that set out clear metric based parameters.
On the other hand, the work of contributors will always require a high-degree of context and nuance. We should not strive to maximize the number of contributors. Just like any highly skilled professionals the work does not scale linearly.
I view the role of Community Manager and many of the functions laid out by @Pepperoni_Joe as screening and context building. We need these functions to help people join our community and start participating in some of our initiatives like Impression Mining. The vast majority of people who join as community members will not become contributors and that is ok. Alongside this mission of educating new community members, the community manager should also be screening people over time and helping to place high impact high level community members with the appropriate working groups only when they are ready.
Much of the current frustration comes from community members with little context or time in the Coop immediately attempting to make high impact contributions. This is not a bad thing, but we need to do a better job of setting expectations and ensuring that new energy does not get in the way of existing operations or initiatives.