Could that have to do something with changes in go tooling (something that you alluded to in your original comment) rather than emacs itself? I am sorry I am not familiar with the go ecosystem at all.
In my own experience, emacs developers generally have the exact opposite approach and strongly resist any changes that may break existing user workflow. Of course, externally maintained packages might take a different approach because they are developed independently of emacs.
Even if you are not yourself interested in emacs development, you can contribute by just making bug reports for these missing features or breaking changes in the packages that you use. That's just being a conscientious open source citizen.
In my own experience, emacs developers generally have the exact opposite approach and strongly resist any changes that may break existing user workflow. Of course, externally maintained packages might take a different approach because they are developed independently of emacs.
Even if you are not yourself interested in emacs development, you can contribute by just making bug reports for these missing features or breaking changes in the packages that you use. That's just being a conscientious open source citizen.