if you knew the tech you would know keeping 1mb base and just saying the weight can grow wont actually increase transactions, as even segwit transactions need to sit in the base, thus are so they are also restricted.
segwit increases throughput to the extent that witness data is removed from the base block. this is why most blocks are now 1-1.5MB instead of <1MB.
2. by expanding base to 2mb but without reducing the sigops limits. people can do quadratic signing exploits. sigops need reducing.
that would only be true if we
needed to increase base block size to 2MB. there is no need; you are inventing it.
i presume by your preference to not see sigops limit reduced, you are for the mindset of never ever expanding the base block which means never expanding the transaction count per block..
i want to restrict block size to force fees higher. if block space isn't limited, bitcoin's economic model of a hard capped supply simply doesn't work. i would never want to sacrifice long term economic viability of the protocol for short term throughput gains.
plus a hard fork to increase the base block size would undoubtedly result in a blockchain split. schnorr signature aggregation incentives may justify another another soft fork segwit-style increase. that may be a reasonable compromise down the road.