So each side in this debate can then be accused of "ignoring" the other. Maybe I'm biased (being opposed to the move myself), but I think even an objective read of the opposing posts will yield a considerable allusion to the fact that they are opposed to the promotion of a proprietary software, not just it's existence.
Promotion - as in, for example, putting it as the default (even if only to have it tested - why are we providing free testing services to a profit-making company?). Promotion - as in including it as a choice of office software where the dozens of other paid alternatives are not.
Promotion - as in providing market research feedback on their product.
As I understand it, people (some, at least) are questioning why Softmaker are being promoted. No announcements about free choice, or changes that Softmaker are making to their product address this issue in the slightest. I think most peaople already know that Manajro (and Arch) are not FOSS only platforms. It's not about simply having a non-FOSS product available though is it? So detractors are not "ignoring" announcements. People simply want to know (and unless I've missed it, still remain unanswered on) why this particular company are being promoted by what they (quite fairly) think of as being, at least in part, their OS.
Is it so hard to imagine that a community which acts as testers, documentation-writers, support staff and even occasional coders might feel they have some communal ownership of this project (even if only in name)? And that such a community might have some strong feelings about their efforts being put towards promoting someone else's profits?