Community Edition user limit is documented four different ways

Plane publishes four mutually inconsistent statements about whether the self-hosted Community/Free edition has a user/seat limit. Could a maintainer confirm which one is authoritative and reconcile the others?

1. Marketing page: no limit
https://plane.so/open-source (FAQ section, retrieved 2026-05-16, last modified 2026-03-08):

What features are in Plane's free Community Edition?
Unlimited projects, work items, cycles, modules, pages, five layout views, intake, dashboards, estimates, REST API, and webhooks. No user limits.

Is Plane free?
Community Edition is free with no user limits. Cloud has a free tier. Commercial starts at $7 per seat per month.

2. Comparison blog post: 12-user limit on Community
https://plane.so/blog/plane-vs-openproject-which-should-you-choose-in-2026 (Feb 2026):

Plane's Community Edition is licensed under AGPL-3.0, and the self-hosted free tier mirrors the cloud free tier with a limit of 12 users per workspace.

3. Billing docs: 12-seat Free plan cap, no mention of edition
https://docs.plane.so/workspaces-and-users/billing-and-plans#free-plan-seat-limits (retrieved 2026-05-16):

The Free plan supports up to 12 seats.

The page describes a 12-seat Free plan cap throughout but never uses the words "Community" or "Commercial" anywhere. Self-hosters landing here from Google cannot tell whether the cap applies to their deployment or only to Cloud.

4. Maintainer in Discussion #4532: no hard limit at all, only a soft performance threshold

the restriction exists as a hard-coded limit with the Free plan on the Commercial Edition ... there is no hard-coded restriction on the Community Edition

Teams evaluating Plane against other open-source alternatives cannot determine whether Community is viable for their headcount.

Requested action: Pick one position and reconcile the others so they match. If Community has no seat limit, correct the blog post and clarify the billing docs. If it has a 12-seat cap (which I struggle to understand the reasoning behind, but ok), correct the marketing page. If the cap is a 'soft performance recommendation' rather than a hard limit, say so explicitly on all pages (noting that the pricing page currently links to docs about paid plans; so perhaps that is where the error is).

See also (related): #2951, #4095, Discussion #4532. None of these address the contradiction described (unless I have missed something).

Start by comparing the open-source marketing FAQ, the Plane-vs-OpenProject blog post, and the billing and plans documentation, then review Discussion #4532 and related issues #2951 and #4095. Done means the authoritative Community Edition seat policy is confirmed and the affected pages consistently describe whether the limit is hard, absent, or only a performance recommendation.