Once the new framework gains popularity the limitations caused by ignoring complexity start to surface and so the framework has to add features to handle them, creating complexity of its own.
Then the cycle repeats itself.
1. Framework X is created based on the vision of its founder
2. Lots of people begin to use it
3. X gets better and better (user feedback + excitement of the project's success)
4. X becomes super popular and attracts people from other frameworks
5. More and more contributors begin committing code (helpful, but hard to manage beyond a certain volume), and entropy increases - more bugs start getting through (think Rails, where there were loads of security and data loss bugs in the span of single years)
6. People bring their ideas with them, which is helpful at times, but which also begins to dilute the X creator's vision and replace it with a democratic vision (sometimes good, sometimes bad)
7. Social pressure causes the creator of X to begin changing his vision to accommodate the community
The apex of quality is at # 4, and that's the point we're approaching now. Also worth noting is that this timeline isn't always followed exactly. Take Django, for instance. It was able to keep up with community demands without caving in to too many wild requests, and it managed entropy by keeping the number of core committers to a minimum for many years.
With some projects, it's both obvious and simple. Similar to eternal summer. Democracy means that all of us get to be dumber than any of us.
The unfortunate part is that it's moments like this (when a framework makes it into the spotlight in a big way like this) that those hordes begin their swim.
Evan is an excellent developer, and it won't by through his volition that Vue gets ruined.