I wish you were right, Ananias.
But it's now about 11 years since ACNA was founded and it's still just a federation of six separate Anglican church bodies promising to merge. And the way that all of them have been kept on board this long is by the church taking a stand on almost nothing controversial.
Don't believe in women's ordination? Okay, choose which ACNA diocese you want to live in. Want to know what Book of Common Prayer ACNA uses? Okay, take your pick. And so on.
For many of us, its history has been a disappointment.
Indeed, ACNA may have been all along just what it's critics said at the start--they're ordinary Episcopalians, except that they don't condone homosexual relations.
My take on this is that 11 years isn't that long of a time, given the complete mess the Anglican communion has been for so long. It took the Reformation more than a century to take shape and play out, and that process continues to this very day.
Anglicanism has always prided itself on being wide rather than narrow in terms of doctrine and practice. I am very definitely on the low-church Reformed side rather than the Anglo-Catholic side, but I find nothing to object to in the BCP, the 39 Articles, or the practice of my ACNA church. I actually like a little pomp and ritual in my church service.
My disagreement regarding the diaconate has less to do with ordaining women than with whether Deacons should need to be ordained in the first place. If you consider the diaconate as a "training ground" for future priests, then it should be restricted to men. But if you consider it as a nonordained church office for servantship to the church, then I think it should be open to all members of the congregation who fulfill the requirements. There is Biblical and extra-Biblical support for female deacons (though it's unlikely deacons in the ancient church are the same as ordained Deacons in the Anglican church).
ACNA already mandates that Bishops must be male. Regarding women priests...I think ACNA leadership is dealing with a messy and emotionally-charged issue that they inherited from the Episcopalians, and they will be decades working it out. We must be patient. Believe me, this is hard for me to say, because I am against ordaining women as presbyters as I believe it goes against the plain doctrine of scripture. But you can't unbake a cake, and I'm unwilling to sanction the defrocking of women who were legitimately ordained by their bishop. I think consensus is building in the ACNA to prohibit the practice, but there are still a lot of high emotions in many of the dioceses that prevent a resolution. For now, Article XXVI of the 39 Articles should guide us. (My own take is that at some point ACNA will stop ordaining women priests but will allow currently-ordained women priests to continue as usual. I think this is the proper outcome.)
I think church practice will also converge now that the 2019 BCP has been published. I don't think ACNA will ever be a high-church Province; it's always going to lean heavily to the low-church/evangelical end of the spectrum. But who knows? Regional differences among dioceses may drive that. The South leans low-church and evangelical; the Northeast leans high-church and Anglo-Catholic. The mid-Atlantic has a mix. Perhaps, in true Anglican fashion, individual congregations will decide on a church-by-church basis. (Though I hope there is a canon adopted that mandates the use of the 2019 BCP -- that should be a necessary point of church-practice unity.)
