Well, let me point out the fundamental conflict between "tolerance" and "duty" that can be observed here once more: "We have no time, we have real-life-duties" (requiring tolerance) vs. "this is a serious project with commitment, today we did this, this and this" (expressing duty).
For a project with this tiny size (and yet, obviously remarkably good results so far - where other projects failed), surely much flexibility is acceptable, but you DO have a donation bar at the top and one surely asks himself a few things about it that all have to do with commitment. (E.g., whom do you intend to hire? What exactly is he going to work on? Is this open for applications or is there a "closed circle" of, e.g., current developers? Who picks the person and can anyone "pick himself with others' money"? - What happens if you do not get the money together? - What happens if you get the money this year, but not the next?) You see, it is in the nature of commitment that computers and programs really have very, very little to do with it at all.
It is criticised that the newsletter itself is gone. Not that it cannot be replaced by "something" but it was a form of commitment and it is noticeable that the project itself is unable to re-attribute, even temporarily, the task of writing a newsletter. Nor was there any official communication regarding its termination. No, total veil of darkness - "It is not there, come on, 'guess what happened'.". You do something covertly in the dark and expect people to ... do what? Read SVN? Your commit log? CIA.vc? - Give me a break. Do YOU daily read the law reforms of your country? You know, you actually theoretically "have to", because it is supposed that you know them all and abide by them.
Just as you read of technological advances not by reading technical papers by Monsanto, IBM or NASA, but - as with the laws - from "the press", there should be some type of "interaction with the public". Something that lets people feel "nice here", and let them know that this is a project with a future, because it cares about "you, their future user, please do come again". - If that is lacking, why should anyone try to persuade his rich uncle to donate to ReactOS?
I really believe the OP was asking not so much about the newsletter. But about when you intend to transform some parts of this project from a hobby (where you can expect all the tolerance in the world as it is all yours - and where you expect no more support whatsoever), into a duty, where you have "obligations to the public" (which, by the way, if they are followed through conscientously usually tend to rise that bar on the top of your page rather quickly). But so far - who can "invest" in you with a donation "securely", without having the risk of hearing again an excuse why something was not done? Why should he invest - "who are you"?