My memory is that when dathon first proposed it, the timeline was somewhat shorter (2 or 3 months).
8 months does not seem to me to be enough time to build consensus around this. The fact RDTS has changed in response to feedback does not mean it has formed consensus. I suppose we each have our definitions of what constitutes a "rushed" fork, but my question wasn't about whether it was rushed or not, but rather why it is presented as an emergency.
You make a distinction between "critical" and "urgent" but I do think that many supporters of BIP 110 have used language that BIP 110 is required soon. I believe the original version had a sort of emergency activation method.
But I will accept your position that it is not urgent, but rather critical. Can you explain how such a difference looks in real life? It still seems to me that there are many Bitcoiners who aren't sure about BIP 110, why not extend the timeline 6 months to see if you can get us on board?
My memory is that when dathon first proposed it, the timeline was somewhat shorter (2 or 3 months).
8 months does not seem to me to be enough time to build consensus around this. The fact RDTS has changed in response to feedback does not mean it has formed consensus. I suppose we each have our definitions of what constitutes a "rushed" fork, but my question wasn't about whether it was rushed or not, but rather why it is presented as an emergency.
You make a distinction between "critical" and "urgent" but I do think that many supporters of BIP 110 have used language that BIP 110 is required soon. I believe the original version had a sort of emergency activation method.
But I will accept your position that it is not urgent, but rather critical. Can you explain how such a difference looks in real life? It still seems to me that there are many Bitcoiners who aren't sure about BIP 110, why not extend the timeline 6 months to see if you can get us on board?