I agree this seems like the big issue; once the taxonomy system ball gets rolling it takes a lot of effort to stop it and point it in a different direction. I assume most taxonomists are going to have their head down in their field working away at whatever group they focus on in a way that aligns with how their colleagues also do work in that group. Not many are going to be reading meta-taxonomic literature, and I’m not sure to what extent it even makes sense for individuals to change and go against the grain if everyone else is doing things in a certain way (even if that way isn’t ideal), since it at least keeps things consistent.
It doesn’t take a lot of effort to find that there are people making meta-taxonomic critiques, but I’m not sure what the pathway would be for those to spread though academia up to the larger influential organizations etc.
Those papers aren’t exactly new (2004 and 2013) and are cited in hundreds of other papers. I looked through a handful of those and there are lots discussing issues affecting particular taxa, or exploring how to redefine species concepts in general, or discussing how this all creates issues for conservation. But there aren’t any clear answers or lines to draw so I don’t know how you’d tell if any progress is being made.
(Edit: I’m curious what conclusions this paper made but can’t find a full text - ‘A bare-bones scheme to choose between the species, subspecies, and ‘evolutionarily significant unit’ categories in taxonomy and conservation’)