He's still pushing BIP101 which is probably the worst idea since the invention of software. Gavin and Mike are insane to keep sticking with that concept of doubling the max block size every two years.
Increase max blocksize to 8MB and make the change static, that's the best solution. Then fork again in a few years as/if needed.
If BIP 101 were adopted, we would move to 8MB, then when the first doubling came around, we could "fork again in a few years as/if needed". If the first doubling were judged OK, we could revisit again in four years, etc.
The idea that 101 somehow locks us in to the doubling permanently is completely wrong. If 101 truly sounds like the "worst idea since the invention of software" to you, you've been listening to the shills too much.
The only thing that forces us to come together and consider changing the rules is "static" limit on block size, but only when enough pressure begins building up. With the curve in BIP101 there will never be a distinct point in time that would trigger us to consider deviating from that schedule. The blockchain will slowly but surely be sliding away and eventually get locked up in those large data-centers under the premise of "national security", that's where Bitcoin as we know it would end.
But, as it stands now, even 8MB blocks might be risky at the moment as we may lose significant amounts of full nodes and then decisions of changing the "consensus" rules will be made without the actual users of the network. Economic pressure is a good thing, we should be welcoming it as there is a need to test this aspect of the system and see what other effects come into play and how the whole ecosystem reacts to this.