Challenge? Lack of manpower?
What in my last posts sounded like even as much as days of work? Even hours?

I'd say you're simply not willing to even consider it.

What The F...k is the challenge and needed manpower in removing a package from MP???
I very consciously blame you for abusing/exploiting MP as a cheap excuse to forcefeed your personal preferences onto all CSSU users.
Or is this just a glitch in communication?I never suggested to "change/transform the [whole] MP thing", at least not short term. We actually don't have the manpower for THAT. But what's an inevitable demand is that new (replacement) packages don't perpetuate that broken MP thing but rather use a better way to package and distributing them - a way that's independent of MP and absolutely not introducing any significant overhead. Thus your argumentation of "take it or leave it" is not honest.

Oh, and Ade, when you actually attended that meeting and the following chats, you pretty well know that HAM was no way a core requirement for implementing independence from the buggy broken Nokia-MP. We knew from very beginning that apt can handle all that just fine and it's only HAM and its user UI that needs some patches. Nothing like " make some adaptions in HAM to start with." Rather we decided to implement/package packages the right way to start with.

Just again, since it seems you still don't grok it: we don't need any patches in HAM to change packaging towards some scheme that allows powerusers to remove/replace CSSU-FOSS-alternatives by the core Nokia fremantle package (read the last statement again! make sure you got the meaning right!). Those power users can use apt for that. And you - the developers and maintainers - don't need to distribute/ship your new FOSS packages via HAM and MP, you as well can use apt and a tiny script for that (at least I hope you know how to do that). The only thing you lose is 30 min for creating such script (one-time effort, adding new packages is as little as 30s) and your "option" to force those new packages onto all users since they can't opt out of them when those packages are in MP, even when they are willing to use apt.
Not that the amount of work was any legit argument for forcefeeding something onto users based on "we have no manpower for that" aka "we're too lazy or not experienced enough and not willing or not capable to consider the topic". Not even when the correct packaging would make up to 50% of development effort. Basically the rule applies: "if you can't do it the right way, rather don't do it at all than in a way that makes things worse".
But in THIS VERY CASE the effort is as neglectable as it can get, it's simply you who are not willing to even discuss it. If you think this is a false assumption then educate me what's the unbearable amount of work in doing it the right way, please!