I understand your concerns. What kinds of changes do you think should go through a process like this? Just hard forks?

I was thinking that an advantage of making all BIPs use this process is that it makes it familiar and well used. Kinda like a muscle grows stronger with use. If only hard forks go through the process then there's the risk that the process has to be spun up whenever they happen which might cause confusion.

Another reason I was thinking is that even small, local changes, it doesn't hurt to have a few more people take a look at it and approve it.

The bureaucracy only applies to BIPs, not PRs. There's only been 18 approved/final/accepted BIPs in 4 years since BIP-0001. That's only about ~5 per year. I get that bureaucracy is often a waste of time, but I just don't think every second counts for these things.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Friday, September 04, 2015 8:13:18 PM Andy Chase via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Who makes high-level Bitcoin decisions? Miners, client devs, merchants, or
> users? Let's set up a system where everyone has a say and clear acceptance
> can be reached.

For hardforks (removing consensus rules), economic consensus: people who
accept payment in bitcoins weighted by their actual volume of such payments.
A supermajority subset may arguably be sufficient for some hardforks (which
don't violate Bitcoin's social contract) since they can effectively compel
the remaining economy to comply.

For softforks (adding consensus rules), a majority of miners: they can "51%
attack" miners who don't go along with it.

Anything else does not necessarily need universal agreement, so are
completely up to the whim of individual software projects. If someone doesn't
like a decision in Core (for example), they can safely fork the code. If any
significant amount of people use their fork, then the BIP is accepted whether
or not Core later adopts it.

Note this "system" is really describing a lack of a system - that is, what
naturally must happen for changes to occur. Softforks have a relatively
mature technical method for measuring support and deploying (which I believe
someone else is already working on a BIP describing), but the same thing is
impractical for hardforks. Some formal way to measure actual economic
acceptance seems like a good idea to study, but it needs to be reasonably
accurate so as to not change the outcome from its natural/necessary result.

Luke