It most likely will not work. As I have outlined in a recent post, there are too many different and "entrenched" camps.
There are a lot of different "camps":
1) BU only.
2) Core only.
3) Soft-fork only.
4) Hard-fork only.
5) Only block-size increase.
6) Only block-size decrease.
7) No hard-fork at any cost.
8.) Other?
We can even expand on this. There are people that think 51% of hashrate (node percentage is irrelevant) is adequate for a hard fork as an upgrade, and there are those who think that 100% is required. Both of these ideologies are absurd.
I have read
DooMAD's proposal now and I like it a bit. It would give less powers to miners as they only can vote for small block size increases, but would eliminate the need for future hardforks. The only problem I see is that it could encourage spam attacks (to give incentives to miners to vote higher blocksizes) but spam attacks will
stay as expensive as they are today will be even more expensive than today because of the "transaction fees being higher than in last period" requirement, so they are not for everyone.
I do have to add that, while I think that it would be still extremely hard to gather 90-95% consensus on both ideas, I think both would reach far higher and easier support than either Segwit or BU.
That certainly sounds like a good idea, if the community decides to support this proposal. Would Core allow that kind of compromise?
Core can not stop community/miner consensus. Let me see a viable BIP + code first, then we can talk about that.