Hey,
I don't really like gunicorn/uvicorn options as you pretty much need to have a proper web-server in front of it for TLS termination, routing, etc. And having a web-server can add quite some complexity and overhead to setup, especially when talking about the devstack.
I believe that the project should just suggest a WSGI-compatible handler for the app, and don't be too specific about the implementation, while leaving choice to users or deployment tools.
With that being said, uWSGI is maintained, it's not "unmaintained" - last release was 3 month ago. The biggest issues I see with uWSGI so far is absence of HTTP/2 support and absence of ASGI - but none of these issues are solved with gunicorn to be fair.
As a potential replacement for uWSGI I'd be probably considering granian [1] which, on paper, ticks all the boxes, but I have not yet tried any production environment on it. But again, I think our generic recommendations about WSGI handlers should be abstract overall, and leave the choice to end users.