Thanks for your perspective, yet I am not going to concede that I am talking about this matter incorrectly...
Maybe we are getting caught up on semantics, yet the main framework of my contention should be obvious.
The fact of the matter has been that since XT, Classic and BU there have been various whiny attempts to complain that bitcoin is too stagnant and bitcoin needs to be able to change more easily and bitcoin was designed to be able to change easily... blah blah blah.. therefore hardfork and hardfork frequently in order that bitcoin can adjust to changing markets and become more competitive with modern payment systems blah blah blah.. bitcoin is broken the way it is and therefore it should be easier to change.
Those are attempts at changes in governance because they attempt to make bitcoin easier to change based on false premises and by assertions that there are technical problems and that bitcoin is broke and bitcoin should be x, y or z and it is not achieving.. blah blah blah.. Arguing that there is an emergency in order to deceive and trick into lowering consensus levels and consensus mechanisms.
So whether you disagree with my understanding or not or my use of the term 'governance", my point remains valid that there are ongoing complaints about the system that is in place (concededly evolving with the passage of time as you mentioned examples of possible ways to evolve) in order to attempt to lower various consensus thresholds and to make bitcoin more moldable, and even if some of those changes do occur over time, as you mentioned with your examples, it does not mean that there is not going to be resistance to various more extreme attempts, such as attempts to hardfork at lower consensus levels.
I only recall people saying that the code shouldn't ossify completely to the point where no change can ever be made.
Part of the argument is that there is no reason for the change, and change should be easier to make.. . but there was no real technical justification.. besides the desire to make change easier.
The notion that consensus should be easier to change was a smallblockist strawman and a baseless accusation from what I remember seeing. Maybe I just missed that particular argument, I don't know.
Sounds like you missed the point.
Plus, consensus changing once doesn't necessarily mean it's easier to change again, unless those who decided they couldn't follow along volunteered to fork away, meaning their voice would hold no weight in future forks. Think about it.
I am thinking about it. There is a dynamic called precedence, which works in a lot of practices. Once a pattern or practice is established that becomes the standard for the future.
If everyone who is involved in securing the network now remains part of the network after a fork, it's no easier or harder for consensus to change again in future because every participant still has the same power they always had. There's still no change in the consensus mechanism. It's still not a change in governance. You're still wide of the mark.
What the fuck are you talking about? There is no such thing as everyone staying the same. Stakeholds and participants are constantly changing in the real world, and power is partly distributed by participation and effort. So if a standard is established in which a change is made because of this much hash power is accumulated, for example, then that would be a guideline for future decisions for change. I don't know why you are trying to personalize this question regarding consensus.