There’s a lot of resentment around the topic that has to be worked through. It’s a bit ridiculous.
Even though I’m part of the “uses flakes everywhere”-side I gotta say that there are good reasons for this (the way how this technology was adopted, the way how the RFC process happened etc.).
Also, as said by others there are a bunch of important issues to tackle first (mostly lazy trees), but that has been discussed here already in great detail already.
What I want to say is: issues and concerns have to be resolved. It’s absolutely OK to not know about all the details (a lot of that happened/started a few years ago), but especially then calling this ridiculous doesn’t help at all and isn’t very nice either IMHO.
It’s not my goal to be nice. I’m a relative outsider who has no cultural or technical investment in this. I think it’s productive to offer some perspective especially when things here have been stuck for years now.
I think you have a cool thing here and things need to move forward. That’s all.
That would be a huge hassle and should only be done as a last resort.
I’d start with getting the people in the same room. Have them talk it out and decide on a course forward and if they can’t decide, escalate it to the next best authority.
I don’t think I’m qualified to rework any part of the RFC but it feels complicated and I’m not confident that even when it’s approved that the plan that it sketches out will be executed with any urgency.