It's another vain attempt to communicate to the core devs to increase the effing blocksize. Nobody seems to be listening.
Personally I'm sick of the cult-like core devotees who claim to be intelligent and technically knowledgeable.
Personally I'm sick of people not being willing to understand or accept that an allegedly 'simple' blocksize increase exposes the network to a DoS risk. Yes it was thought a plain blocksize increase would be fine in the past; now we know better. Does that mean we should plough on regardless, knowing it's flawed?
And now Core's inability to properly manage and communicate their scaling solution is leading us towards a much more dangerous HF. A damaging contentious HF now will primarily be Core's failure, not anyone else's victory. Not exactly stellar risk management.
It is unfortunate that everything had to be bundled together like this. Especially when the contention in the BTC community became apparent. I understand there are technical reasons for doing so, but that's a lot of eggs in one basket.
And we can always find risks for any solutions any changes any actions, even for no action.
So best way is to try as many as possible and find back to the initial experiment thinking of Satoshi.
Shrink the code to protocol level, clean it down to minimal essential params and diversify code bases. Best will win but only if free use is possible to find out about what works and what not.