I see both sides here. Taproot had unintended consequences — one of which is Nostr. Nostr identity is based on the Taproot BIP, and it's given Bitcoin the beginnings of a social layer. There’s a difference between maintenance and renovation. You maintain a school by mopping the floors; you renovate it by adding a new door to a corridor. In any system or standard, there’s always a grey area between minor maintenance changes and behaviour-altering changes. At the W3C, we have something called “class 2” changes — used for typos, improved examples, and other edits that don’t affect behaviour. They follow a lightweight process. Larger changes are “class 3” and go through wider review. It’s common to see people try to pass class 3 changes off as class 2 — but the rule is: if there’s disagreement, it’s not class 2. (Of course, who defines disagreement is a whole other problem.) Bitcoin might benefit from a similar distinction: separating maintenance from behavioural changes, and handling them with different levels of review and process. Discussion is always good in these situations.