> Yeah, this can be a little extreme, and I feel we can benefit from being a little more open to trying new things.

Sure, sometimes, when we have the time and surplus to deal with changes to things that already work well enough, and are not essential to doing our actual job.

That should be something you can opt in to.

Changing things for someone who's actually doing real work on top of the existing setup, is an undesired hurdle.

People are change-averse because they've been taught that change is costly, and they completely rationally ask "what's in it for me?". You want them to buy in to the change, you better give a good answer to that, one which is a more than negligible benefit in a few cases that the user may not care about. "Good enough" is good _enough_, it doesn't _need_ changes. Any change has to pay for its own retraining cost, in time and mental effort, otherwise it's a net negative for that user.

Being change-averse is the rational default behavior. Ignoring that, or even belittling it, is disrespecting your users.