Let me preface this with... I am NOT connected to CentOS other than being a user and author of one of the HOWTOs on their wiki.
You don't seem to understand CentOS. While they might have a bug tracking system... I don't think their goal is to track general package bugs. Their goal is to provide as close of an experience to upstream as possible... bugs and all. The only bugs that should be in CentOS' bug tracking system are bugs that relate to packages that they alter from upstream... or packages in their additional, optional repositories. There are only a small handful of packages that CentOS modifies.
That means that kernel bugs and package bugs (those unmodified by CentOS) should really be reported to Red Hat as it is the upstream source of the CentOS packages... although it is better to have some sort of business relationship with Red Hat when wanting to use them for support. That's only polite. Over the years Red Hat has seemed to have warmed up to the CentOS project and realized that they are helping to keep people in the Red Hat fold... and some CentOS users, when their needs expand beyond the support model offered by the CentOS project, will become Red Hat customers. I don't really have a reference to give you on this but it is my understanding that, being what it is, CentOS has several million users... and while it doesn't get a lot of attention on sites like distrowatch.com, it is one of the most popular distributions for server usage.
To the best of my knowledge, CentOS doesn't have any kernel developers as it is a completely volunteer effort. If ALT Linux has some kernel developers, I'm guessing it is sponsored by some commercial entity who can afford to pay them? It is kind of hard to find kernel developers who will maintain kernel code for a distribution over a long period of time for free... as if they are competent they can likely get big bucks elsewhere.
It is a bit tacky of you to criticize a volunteer who is in a position of leadership and obviously gives a lot of his time to the community. The bug in question is quite old and I'd be surprised if it hasn't been fixed long ago in a kernel update from upstream.