I believe that if one were truly concerned with helping Go developers, they'd be helping them migrate to a more productive, more community-driven language, such as Rust or Elixir, depending on their needs.
It is the doom of Go to remain Google's play-thing and that has and will continue to lead to choices at odds with the needs of most developers.
The fact is a lot of people are perfectly fine with current Go capabilities and prefer writing useful software solution as compared to debating on PL theories and community agendas.
How many? how many didn't use Go because it lacked of a sane type system? because Go relies way too much on runtime behavior (AKA type switches and reflection) to be called a modern statically typed language. In all my time using Java I never had to cast something once or use reflection, or to do a type assertion, all these are common practice in Go, especially when the std lib is now getting API like Context.Value(interface{})interface{}.
This isn't PL theory, these are flaws that aren't going anyway and will become more apparent as users will have to maintain all that "productive Go code" written 5/10 years ago. With Go the developers basically do the compiler's job manually. These problems are absolutely not going away, and people will write about how they ditched Go for these reasons.
But others will come to the conclusion that things like complex name lookup rules, or generally too many possible interpretations of individual syntactical expressions, cause hugely greater mental load than any of Go's shortcomings.
That said, I have a lot of complaints about Go too. Especially error handling.
Citation needed. Has anyone actually done any sort of survey of users or potential users of Go to see what the opinion is regarding generics? How many would prefer Go with generics to Go without (I use Go almost exclusively at work, and would really appreciate generics, so there's at least one)? How many would prefer Go to not have generics? How many are ambivalent? If there is, could you please cite it?
I'm kind of frustrated by phrases like this being bandied about without evidence to back it.
For me existence of lot of software which are build with Go like Docker/Kubernetes and http based tools I develop and use it internally at work is good enough to assume Generics are not that important.
FWIW internally the Go team has a survey of all Googlers each year about why they are or are not using Go, but I am guessing even then getting responses about why they aren't is hard to come by.
I personally have other axes to grind that are much higher on my list (like os.File not being an interface) than generics.
Perhaps you see all languages as roughly equivalent and that is the cause of our differing opinions. In any case I've known quite a few engineers who have really drunk the koolaid, invested heavily in Go, become zealots for of the language and suffered for it before moving to options like Rust, Elixir, Kotlin or even Java or C++.
I'm just trying to prevent some of that suffering going forward. Nothing more nefarious than that!
Those complaints have been said a thousand times already, will no doubt will be said a thousand times more. And all will be ignored, as they should.
It's also possible that your needs align particularly well with those of those who control the project. That's okay, too!