If a bug fix with test coverage sits in a queue for years, just because the maintainer is an arsehole, then a bit of mild criticism should probably be expected.
The "just because the maintainer is an arsehole" thing is the question here. How many times is it really just because the maintainer doesn't like the person who submitted it, or they just laugh to themselves and want to see how angry people get? I'd venture a guess to say almost never.
The issue becomes when folks assume it's just the maintainer being a jerk rather than any number of completely valid reasons, which could be anything from "PRs from employees and core contributors are prioritized and we can barely handle those as it is" to whole way to "I don't think this feature fits in with my larger vision for the project."
It is almost never "just because the maintainer is an arsehole."
Can I ask you to send me $100 and then criticise you when you don’t? Or is that an unreasonable criticism since why on earth should you send me any money?
The issue becomes when folks assume it's just the maintainer being a jerk rather than any number of completely valid reasons, which could be anything from "PRs from employees and core contributors are prioritized and we can barely handle those as it is" to whole way to "I don't think this feature fits in with my larger vision for the project."
It is almost never "just because the maintainer is an arsehole."