I love these kinds of threads because they expose what the community (well, the Enworld community) thinks of classes. I've noticed a few trends on my non-scientific observations.
Class reorganization tends towards two extremes: a large collection of micro-classes (very specific classes that hold to a single concept, often split off of current classes) or very broad overclasses that can absorb multiple current classes into them, differentiated by openly flexible class features. There is a group of people who prefer the system as is (plus or minus a few classes) but most pipe-dreaming ends up on either end of the scale.
People REALLY hate the names of the current classes. Seriously! While the more cultural or archetype specific names (paladin, bard, druid, monk, barbarian) get called out frequently, there seems to be an overall desire to rename every class in the game, even fighter, wizard and rogue which are 100% descriptive of what they do.
There appears to be a trend towards what I call Final Fantasy Tactics (FFT) style class branching. That is, starting with a small pool of generic classes and expanding into more complex archetypes as you gain levels. In theory, this is to control for choice paralysis since you only have limited options to start and gradually gain more options as you go. It, however, also requires a lot of pre-planning as if you don't think ahead, you could be locked out of the archetype you wanted (akin to how 3.5 prestige classes often required dedicated character mapping to maximize benefit).
Subclass-replacing-niche-class has worked in some cases: no one is calling for an assassin base class, for example. However, there is still a dedicated group of people who want their warlords, psionics, avengers, or swordmages as base classes. If battlemaster or eldritch knight couldn't scratch the itch of warlord or swordmage fans, I can't imagine a subclass would do justice to barbarians, paladins, or rangers.
The most telling thing is that Enworld desires a more complex version of D&D, probably more so than much of the outside player base. It fits the demographics, which screw a little older, more DMish, and very DIY. The idea of a class-as-toolkit you use to build your custom PC fits right in with the game-as-toolkit you use to build your campaign/setting. Its contrasted, of course, by the simpler, curated but less flexible archetypal system that WotC opts for; with lots of options but less actual choice-points. Most PCs are fully formed by level 3-4. Campaign settings have become big money for giving DMs a curated set of options. The difference between buying a fully assembled, ready to use object and a kit with tools and instructions you can use to build your own.
Lastly, people really want their "dude with sword casting magic" classes.
