You didn't read what I wrote very carefully, nor do you know who I am.
First, I am one of the Perl gurus, though Tom C can clearly claim higher level guru status than me (on the official Perl Guru rating system I'm a 3 to the power of 𝛑, but Tom is at least a 7 to the power of 3𝛑). But hey, I did release Perl 5.15.6 (https://metacpan.org/release/DROLSKY/perl-5.15.6/), and I've worked on the Perl core a bit (mostly docs).
Second, the "Perl gurus" obviously don't all agree on what the current problem is. Tom C says one thing. Many others disagree with his assessment of the urgency of these bugs, which the article does make clear (Aristotle and RJBS are both also Perl Gurus, though I haven't calculated their exact ratings yet).
But here's the real point ...
These bugs that Tom brought up have existed for quite a while. Note that they are not all security bugs. The security bug mentioned in the article has not been disclosed, and may be something not in Tom's list. The security bug has *also* existed for a while (since 5.14 at the very least).
If we *don't* release Perl 5.16.0 in April, then the latest stable release (5.14.2) will have all of these bugs.
If we *do* release Perl 5.16.0 in April, then the latest stable release (5.16.0) will have all of these bugs.
This is why delaying the release makes no difference. No matter what we do, the latest stable release will have all of these bugs, including the unknown security bug!
The only reason to delay the release is to fix *release-blocking* bugs. These are defined as bugs which introduce *new* regressions since the last stable release. If Perl 5.14.2 didn't have these Unicode bugs, then these would probably be considered blockers, but that's not the case.
The article totally misses this point, which is one reason why I don't think the article is very good.