Michael,
Your response strikes me as ingenuine with regards to "other projects" as it is a project I understand you to be one of the parties spearheading. I think it's misleading to not clarify that in your response.
Your NACK on MTP based ST does not have any merit. The only argument you made for nacking MTP based ST is it is "weird". "Weird" is not a technical argument, it's a normative statement.
As you would ACK either full MTP or full height, but nacking "mixed, seems to be a fallacy of the excluded middle.
I further find your logic around point 2, 'To prevent a "marketed push to launch a UASF client."', to more aptly apply to ST with height.
Pushing for height based ST is causing additional review burden on contributors in service of enabling a fringe group's side project. That is actually making a technical decision on another project's marketing strategy, and is precisely why I NACK'd it.
Even more outrageously, MTP based ST is easily compatible with a height based BIP8 LOT=true + minactiveheight client, so there really is not a good reason for the fuss. Note -- in general UASF is not the fringe group here -- it's the group trying to preempt the release of an ST client with a UASF client which is the fringe sentiment.
For you to flip the exact argument that I made for rejecting ST Height onto ST MTP is no more than a "I know you are but what am I" argument, which I do not think holds water.
Best,
Jeremy