Let me start by saying that in this specific case, I really did share your frustration.
I even opened a topic on Project Discussion to better understand what was going on:
While the issue might be frustrating, I personally found the responses and information I got on that thread very reasonable and explanatory.
Not sure how you came to this conclusion.
Maybe because of some Phoronix click-baity article?
In my experience, systemd-boot support has always been advertised as “experimental” and “niche” on Fedora, and was simply introduced to relieve users that still wanted to set it up from having to manually install and configure the alternative boot process. Don’t forget you had to use the Everything ISO and explicit parameters to set it up, it’s not like it came as a checkbox in Anaconda…
As long as this issue does not affect RHEL directly, this fact is mostly irrelevant.
Many contributions to Fedora might come from RH employees, but they very often - but not always - come from investment of their free time rather than from their working/paid time.
Because of that, one bug fix might be deployed within hours or days, while another might take… well… months, depending on how the maintainer decides to invest their time.
For example, here is another issue relevant to systemd-boot installation I had some time ago, which I have had a great experience with in regards to how the maintainer handled it. I only mention this because this would still be a very recent example when compared with the timeline you used to question if maybe a general trend has been introduced of issues being handled slower.