there's not really a "team", it's just me and folks who like the concepts.

I think the biggest tension right now is w.r.t. soft fork processes:

Are soft forks themselves (not the upgrades contained in it) much riskier than the upgrades?

If the answer is "no" then there's pretty wide support for CTV... if the answer is "yes" then people think waiting for us to make the most impact for this ultra high risk process keeps ctv "below the line" of value add.

I don't think there are any current NACKs of the form "this would be, absent costs of doing any fork, bad or technically unsafe for Bitcoin". Or in other words: would Bitcoin be OK if this were a feature that was always in Bitcoin? Trying to reframe the question of not if we should add it, but would we want to remove it were it already there is useful for reasoning about if you think it is unsafe or bad. E.g., OP_CODESEPARATOR in legacy script is something that we might want to remove were it not already there.