I think what is on topic on a site's meta is going to be largely up to the individual site. I should also note that I have no account on ELU, don't visit without an account to read the occasional thread or find answers from Google (as I do on some sites), etc.
I see no reason a-priori why such a question shouldn't be on topic on a site's meta, if they decide it's OK for them. Moreover, my reading of the linked meta help page suggests it would be within the scope. To wit:
...
Meta is for...
- ...English Language & Usage Stack Exchange users to communicate with each other about English Language & Usage Stack Exchange ...
Asking other ELU users about their experience of the site seems perfectly consistent with that to me. As a result, I would not have assumed that I first needed to ask a different meta question regarding whether that meta question could be asked on meta, which the linked answer seems to take for granted. Viz.,
What you should have done was to ask whether such a question would be on-topic (or granted a derogation) before asking it.
(Note that the boldface and italics are in the original.)
Edit: To quote more fully from meta.ELU's help page:
...
Meta is for...
- ...English Language & Usage Stack Exchange users to communicate with each other about English Language & Usage Stack Exchange (asking questions about how the websites work, or about policies and community decisions)
...
(The boldface is in the original.) There is a legitimate question of how to interpret this sentence. In general, parenthetical phrases are used to provide examples, elaborate, constrain, or qualify a point made in the main clause. One might read the parenthetical phrase here very literally and think of it as constraining the set of possible on-topic meta.ELU questions to only those listed. Indeed, the linked answer only quotes the parenthetical phrase (without the parentheses or ellipses to signal that some context was not included) implying to me that that was their reading. On the other hand, my reading of the full sentence is that the parenthetical phrase is illustrating some of the cases that could fall within the scope of meta.SE.
My conclusion from this is the same as I stated at the top: The users on each SE site can decide for themselves what discussions about their site should be considered on-topic on their meta site. For example, the users of ELU can decide that questions about ELU users are on-topic or off-topic on their meta site. Moreover, I think they can change their minds over time such that at one point it's considered on-topic and later becomes off-topic, or vice versa. In contrast, they should not ever decide that threads about users' stories should be on-topic on their main site—that is verboten. But there is nothing here that precludes a site from deciding they want such things to be on-topic on their meta.