I actually (strongly) disagree. While I do agree that the impact on early access players is negative; I can see that there might be periods when the developers want to rework certain mechanics of the game so they might need several weeks of internal ITERATIVE changes to try different ideas in code and once they decide on an approprach it might still take them a couple of more weeks to rework the idea into the game. From their perspective it is only worth making the update available when they *think* they have a working solution reworked across the entire game - if they know that they haven't finished yet provide the update to the players then the players will spend a large amount of time pointing out the obvious (things they already know are not complete). What they need is for the non-obvious issues (and 'obuse') to be found. Depending on the scope/nature of the change this can take a lot of time. Furthermore what 'we' the players might see as the final result might actually have been a very long internal iterative process in which several different ideas were attempted/tested and then thrown away.
The more I think about it, I don't think that a month between updates is beneficial to anyone. That's far too long. Users don't see any progress, and run out of things to do well before that. Once a major update does drop, there's suddenly a gigantic amount of bugs found flooding QA. It may be true that some features do take a month, but there's no way that every feature being added takes the entire month.
I don't think that delaying all of the one-or-two-weeks-to-get-working features to package them in with the one-month-to-get-working features is a good plan. Instead they could release a smaller update every two weeks, and things which take longer could be delayed for the next one.
