I feel like Go is the way it is, mostly because its maintainers are also responsible for the continued productivity of thousands of engineers working on Google's numerous Go codebases. Any "breaking change" that requires rewriting Go code is a tangible negative for them, in that it'll interrupt Googlers from getting real work done, and the blame will come back to them.
In a sense, Go is more like a corporate-internal DSL that the public just happen to be able to use. (Erlang is—or at least, was, for the first ten years of its life—another language that is this way.)
Rust doesn't really introduce breaking changes. There is just a lot of cognitive power required to keep up with everything, which can make it hard to read other people's code, or know which is the 'best' way to do a thing, etc. People who disagree with this may simply have more cognitive power/time to devote to keeping up with everything in Rust. I have a day job in an entirely different universe, so keeping up with Rust is hard.
Personally I think this is a pretty positive thing. If a language is at all popular then any breaking change is going to mean work for users, and having those users sitting next to you in the office keeps it fresh in your mind when you're tempted to make that "one small change" to the language.
In a sense, Go is more like a corporate-internal DSL that the public just happen to be able to use. (Erlang is—or at least, was, for the first ten years of its life—another language that is this way.)