The visual way the content is displayed should not be controversial. It only gets complicated if the developers/designers start making editorial-decisions about what information should be inside the infobox (without tons of input from the editors).
Ie.
* Changing the look would be relatively easy. (Making the sections/items/images/captions clearer, changing the box design including header-background-color, etc)
* Changing the method for entering infobox-content might be complicated, depending on how much editors have to learn new workflows, or overhaul millions of existing pages. But it should be achievable, because there's a wide agreement that having ~100 lines of template code at the top of articles is not ideal. (We could change this fairly easily, e.g. with subpage transclusion but...:
* Changing where the infomation is stored is very complicated, because anything that separates content from the central page that the editors are watchlisting, suddenly becomes a lot more susceptible to vandalism/inaccuracy, due to lack of scrutiny. There is an option in Special:preferences to "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" - but I find using this tends to be a bit annoying, because of the uninformative edit-summaries and lack of navpopups support for diff-links (so I have visit every change, to see what it did).
* Changing what information is included in an article/infobox, should be left in the hands of the editors. (With discussion encouraged, and change being possible; but it would need to be a very well-researched and cross-wiki discussion)