I'm quite puzzled by the response myself, it doesn't seem to address some of the (more serious) concerns that Adam put out, the most important question that was asked being the one regarding personal ownership of the proposed fork:
"How do you plan to deal with security & incident response for the duration you describe where you will have control while you are deploying the unilateral hard-fork and being in sole maintainership control?"
I do genuinely hope that whomever (now and future) wishes to fork the protocol reconsider first whether they are truly ready to test/flex their reputation/skills/resources in this way... Intuitively, to me it seems counterproductive, and I don't fully believe it is within a single developer's talents to manage the process start-to-finish (as it is non-trivial to hard-fork successfully, others have rehashed this in other threads)...
That being said I think it appropriate if Adam's questions were responded in-line when Mike is feeling up to it. I think that the answers are important for the community to hear when such a drastic change is being espoused.
Faiz