@r0kk3rz, yes I do feel confused and a bit worried about a couple of continuously recurring points in this discussion thread. Maybe using "irritated" with all its possible connotations startled you, but Chen posted hardware specifications 2017-07-28 and a couple of more details in the following days, so everything seemed to be nicely set back then. But in the four months since then, all these premises were questioned again and again; by others, but also by Chen himself (at least this is how I interpreted his questions posted here). Maybe I misinterpreted the aim of these questions, but they clearly contradict the cornerstones of this project as set in late July / early August 2017.
But actually I would prefer @Chen to express, if these original plans still hold true or if they are reevaluated (or if his questions / considerations are solely addressing "future devices", as he once stated).

By no means I would consider him being an "idiot", actually many aspects of his statements and efforts made me trust him a lot, which rather contributes to my current confusion. And maybe I emphasised the aspect of PCB changes too much.
What I wanted to clearly get across was, "Please keep all changes as minimal as possible, as many have underestimated the delays and costs they cause in the past, and a couple of prospective projects died due to this."

Well, I know. Actually "wouldn't be so bad" is a nice way to put it, which may still bear significant pitfalls in contrast to having something working in the first place. But discussing this is irrelevant, if the hardware is still set (and yes, I shouldn't have brought this detail up yesterday).

Look, these are technicalities I tried to avoid, when calling the whole non-mainstream kernel and (partially user-space blob) drivers (i.e. the whole low-level software stack) "Android-kernel" (explicitly in quotation marks): This whole foo has to be adapted to be used by libhybris and Mer / SailfishOS, which takes significant time and efforts.

Oh, I missed that: Thanks for pointing out, that a similar Wifi+Bluetooth+FM chip is rather a disadvantage.
OTOH, SailfishOS supports that already (although with some issues / lacking features), while support for alternative peripheral chips has to be integrated first. So this also is a question of time-to-market and costs (and again irrelevant, if already chosen).

Well, on this point I disagree even on the technical side of things: While I deliberately put the "just" in quotation marks, a hardware well supported by LineageOS will provide many pieces of low-level software to be reusable (some needing to be adapted) without legal and business interactions to get access to and the right to distribute the BSP (board support package) etc. This is a big plus in terms of time and costs involved, IMO, if similar kernel versions for SailfishOS and Android are available. Maybe the Android 6 based release with a better fitting "Android-kernel" version (for SailfishOS) was still published under the CyanogenMod label.