Is it the same people though? Asking to add the Psion, but remove the Sorcerer, Cleric, or Warlock?Heh heh... so amongst all this talk about needing to add psions as a class we also have everyone throwing away all the existing classes at the same time "Don't need the Sorcerer!" "Don't need the Cleric!" "Don't need the Warlock!" "Game only needs 7 classes!" "Game only needs 4 classes!"
And people wonder why WotC doesn't take all of these "requests/demands" seriously and just produces some baseline, standardized stuff for everyone to use instead.
If people spent as much time designing the class they want as they did complaining about WotC not designing it for them... they'd all be better off. At least they'd have something they wanted to play.
How many classes should D&D have? Which character archetypes should be full classes, subclasses, or some other design frame . . . . There is no right answer, which is why we'll never stop arguing about it.
I loved the addition of the Sorcerer in 3rd Edition, but since then . . . . I don't "need" it removed, but if it was, I might not notice. I love the addition of the Warlock! The Cleric . . . it's classic D&D, but is a weird class in that it doesn't really mirror any mythological or literary fantasy archetypes all that well. The "cleric" certainly shows up in literature and video games post-D&D. I have a hard time distinguishing between Clerics and Paladins in my games, they seem (to me) to be slight variants on the same theme, a member of a martial religious order from the Crusades.
Psionics has been controversial since it was first introduced in Eldritch Wizardry, so in that sense, arguing about it is about as classic D&D as you can get!
Personally, I don't think the existing classes model the Psion very well and won't be happy until we get a stand-alone class. Although, I'm fine with a strong third-party design, it doesn't have to be from WotC.