I look to projects such as Apache, Icinga and Squid (all of which I use
happily, and two of which I contribute to the support lists for), which
provide sufficient free documentation to go with the freely-available software
that a newcomer can install it, get it working, and do basic things with it.
All those projects also provide paid consultancy/support contracts, where
people can sponsor new features to be developed, pay for assistance with
unusual configurations, or get timely help where SLAs are a factor.
My opinion is that if a developer implements something in an application, they
should simultaneously document how to make use of it, and if the organisation
behind a project as complex as Grafana (or Icinga, Apache, or Squid - they’re
all pretty big pieces of software with multiple aspects of functionaility)
produces videos telling newcomers how to use a feature, those should be
refreshed when the user interface changes significantly.
If refreshing a video presentation is too much effort (which I can quite
understand), then just rely on written documentation instead.
I fail to understand the purpose behind producing open source software without
similarly open documentation, though - it suggests that the developers don’t
really want the software to be freely-available, and in the end this restricts
the number of knowledgeable non-developers who can help with questions on a
support forum, because so few people have worked out for themselves how to get
the thing working.
I’d be very interested to hear additional opinions on this topic; it would be
good to get things improved one way or another.