Yes, sorry, I've been caught up by the strangeness of seeing this thread moved.  

I'll answer you question here:  I do not think we should promote this idea more aggressively until we improve its presentation and address some of the objections.  In particular:

1. Solex, Justus, and JorgeStolfi made a good point about the importance of a well-defined limit.  I think the graph I posted yesterday was wrong:



I think there will actually be a vertical line of about 60-80% of the hash power at exactly the same limit, with tails on either side.  The lower-limit tail will eventually get forked off.  If this is true, it would address the concern raised of an attacker publishing a block of just-the-right size to cause a (for example) 47/53 network split.  The reason we get the vertical line of "spontaneous consensus" is that everyone knows that unless that line exists, the network could be forked (game theory).

2. We need to make it clear that this is compatible with BIP101, and that we're not even suggesting that the entire network needs to adopt it.  In other words, we're sort of raising awareness that the limit can be set by the community rather than by the developers of a particular implementation of Bitcoin.  

Of course you are free to do as you wish, but I personally would not mail the proposal to the bitcoin-dev list at this time.