I would rather see voting by miners done in the future for changes to be made in the future, than see guesses made today applied far into the future.
That sounds sensible, but it also sounds like you're signed up to Greg Maxwell's prospectus on the issue. I like the idea of dynamic sizing, and of flexibility to make decisions only once that decision is required, but arguments have been made that this creates a perverse incentive for the miners to collude on the vote. Not to say I agree with that, but I haven't fully decided yet. This debate needs a really long time to be adequately digested. Influential people in this community arguably don't understand the system we have now for what it is, the idea that this debate is somehow ready for everyone to make an informed decision is not sensible.
As far as I remember the debate about the max block size cap started a "long" time ago,
an it risked to stall indefinitely.
In my opinion Gavin's conduct has objectively an accelerating effect on the decision
process. I dare to say that such "extreme" attitude had stimulated a lot devs
in focusing to find a solution and to come to a compromise.
I'm not saying that his proposal is perfect or better than any others on the table, just
stating that his strategy have moved the situation toward a new equilibrium by a long shot.