I would hate to see the limit raised before the most inefficient uses of blockchain space, like satoshidice and coinad, change the way they operate.
Who gets to decide what's inefficient? You? That's precisely the problem - trying to centralize the decision. It should be made by those doing the work according to their own economic incentives and desires.
SD haters (and I'm not particularly a fan) like Luke-jr get to not include their txns. Others like Ozcoin apparently have no issue with the likes of SD and are happy to take their money. Great, everyone gets a vote according to the effort they put in.
In addition I would hate to see alternatives to raising the limit fail to be developed because everyone assumes the limit will be raised. I also get the sense that Gavin's mind is already made up and the question to him isn't if the limit will be raised, but when and how. That may or may not be actually true, but as long as he gives that impression, and the Bitcoin Foundation keeps promoting the idea that Bitcoin transactions are always going to be almost free, raising the block limit is inevitable.
Ah, now we see your real agenda - you want to fund your pet projects of off-chain transaction consolidation.
If that is such a great idea - and it may well be, I have no problem with it - then please realise that it will get funded.
If it isn't getting funded, then please ask yourself why.
But don't try and force others to subsidize what you want to see happen. Why no do it yourself if it's a winning idea for the end users?
Likely neither you nor the rest are doing it because there's no real economic incentive to do so - for now, perhaps. But that's what entrepreneurship is all about.