Most of this is invisible to end-users of selenium, as it's just a hammer they pick up; the struggles of the maintainers is not (nor should it be) something they have to worry about.
Nevertheless, they probably could get some hay mentioning that their API implements a significant amount more functionality versus every other cross-browser testing framework.
That said, they really don't have to, the work really stands by itself.
It's pretty apparent that it requires an awful lot of maintenance to keep up with the browsers, so if this really does reduce the workload on them then that ought be noticeable on my end with fewer bugs, quirks and backwards compatibility issues. This is more exciting to me than all of the other features (I'm a bit dubious of the ability to detect if a page has really 'loaded', for instance).
You can even choose different events to wait for!
That said, there's no accounting for developers who think FOUCs are normal, etc and generally make your life as a tester and end user difficult.