How about using your energy to offer a solution. Sticking your finger in the eye of the process is counterproductive. It seems that the most productive people in Bitcoin are offering solutions and getting conversations started. Without Gavin coding and testing the very large blocks we would not be talking about it or working toward a solution.
Believe it or not, but seeing a centralized non-community based hard-fork process as a problem and opening up a discussion on a possible method to resist/hold off that centralized change until it is more community driven, is in fact offering solutions to problems. Here the problem is centralized driven hard-forks, not block-size limit increases. If no one likes or is on-board with the proposal, then there is little point spending energy on it. But if it resonates with some people then maybe it is. Oh, and people have been talking about large blocks since before Gavin took on his maintainer role.
A method to resist is not a solution to a problem. It is a hope for stagnation. Since people have been discussing large blocks since before Gavin took it on, maybe large blocks are needed. I think Gavin's method of suggestion and testing is much more constructive than obstructive and I fail to see how it is centralised.
Gavin's method engenders some centralization of nodes. A great number of nodes can be made to disappear by a single pool loading up some very large blocks. There are other problems with it, but this one may be sufficient for some folks to disagree with it. Node population is an important factor of scalability and functionality. The proposal harms such scalability in order to foster microtransaction scalability.
The internet is not a uniform web of high speed links globally. There are great differences in costs and deployed infrastructure. Very large blocks may reduce Bitcoin to a Northern hemisphere usability.
There are going to be risks with any change. Better proposals than Gavin's have been made and discussed, but they require more code. They are not as simple.
One thing is sure, and that is if we do another hard fork to set-it-and-forget-it using a guess as to what the future of the internet will be based on current or past data, we are going to be wrong about that guess.
Gavin's solution is a very good one from a software-development perspective. It is not a good solution from a protocol perspective. These are very different things.
That we use the data of the block chain, the size of the blocks, or the fees paid to the miners, or a formula combining these, to determine what the environment of the future economy will require.
This says nothing technical. Fees are not technical data. They are sociological. He is implying a sociological solution to a protocol and claiming thre is some magical formula.
. Bitcoin already has that sociological base covered.