"others" would be right, but the present team doing the refactoring is actively, aggressively incompetent, doesn't listen to even constructive feedback, closes critical bugs with snarky comments, refuses outside contributions, claim outside contributions are literally impossible, and absorbs independent functionality in the name of empire building.
So the notional idea of 'refactoring' being better -- yes! But with the constraint being that the people doing the refactoring have to be at least as wise, tasteful, mature, sensible, and thoughtful as the people who came before.
Do I have to state the obvious? This is an open source effort. Not all attempts at persuasion bear fruit. If you feel you are being ignored (by what would appear is a group of maintainers you absolutely despise), I guess the other option would be to fork the repo. This would not be the first time in history people split code over disagreements.
Unfortunately, Red Hat have politically suborned all of the major distributions, and have rapidly and effectively created dependencies between their solution and other codebases in a transparent effort to create and maintain lock-in and to build barriers against the 'fork' strategy.
So the notional idea of 'refactoring' being better -- yes! But with the constraint being that the people doing the refactoring have to be at least as wise, tasteful, mature, sensible, and thoughtful as the people who came before.