I wouldn't necessarily say it's bad, but I don't use it because:

• The project's had a history of failing at really basic administrative tasks like keeping their ssl certificate up to date
• I'm unconvinced they actually do the testing that justifies the delays and not just using arch. This is because security patches sometimes also get delayed and issues have gotten past the delay
• They've accidentally DDoSed the aur multiple times by shipping broken versions of pamac when fixed versions were available
• I've seen complaints about leadership and how they handle finances, though I haven't really looked into this

It’s not so much that the distro is bad, but the leadership of the project, according to a lot of the community working on it, is very unresponsive, bad at administration, doesn’t make decisions that need to be made in a timely manner and not really doing their job. The community basically wants to cut them out and move on.

Don't worry, it's just the open-source version of the market correcting. There's no stock, no venture capital. If the group putting in time and effort to help maintain something doesn't like how the project is being run, they take a copy and start over with a new name. It's happened countless times on OS, it'll happen countless more. Often, the existing leadership is burned out, some of the more active members move on, and those left through attrition lack the skills to keep it going. The forks generally move forward faster and cleaner with more active people. Other than needing to change distros, it's pretty much a win.

I dont know about manjaro, but manjaro for arm is dead in the water and hasnt updated its packages from upstream (arch linux arm) in ages.
I assume regular manjaro has similar issues? Dont know though, and im guessing