Perhaps someone from Cakewalk could say how they prioritize bugs. I assume some of it relates to the difficulty of implementing vs. the perceived benefits. For example, storing track colors with templates would be nice, but it's hardly a workflow killer. If it could be done in an afternoon, sure, why not. But if it's complicated, I don't know if the effort is worth the benefits.
Regarding staff view, while more could be done, fixes have been implemented and I'm sure that was influenced by the vocal staff view fan requests. Perhaps XML is waiting on additional staff view fixes...I don't know.
Then you have something like Track Routing. This is a significant feature that does what people asked for initially and goes beyond. It's not trivial to implement so I would assume the Bakers would have to make a choice between one big oft-requested feature and several fixes.
I do not code so I do not know the intricacies of fixes. Fixes I think would be trivial can take huge amounts of time while something that appears complex turns out to be relatively simple. It may not be possible for CW to say arbitrarily "Since this got more votes, we should do it first" if it means multiple other issues have to go by the wayside. Also, based on past history Cakewalk seems to prefer fixing several related bugs at once. The issues with looping, punching, and time slip are a good example. There were multiple bugs reported for those functions and CW fixed them in one big bug sweep.
It may not be possible to give a definitive answer on how fixes are prioritized because there may be too many variables. It would take someone from Cakewalk to give an answer here that's not speculation.