This being the case, I'd recommend adding Jeff's BIP100 proposal to your poll... 
(http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf)
So far I think this is the most sound proposal for block size increase I've seen. Allows Core to dynamically expand - and more importantly, contract - allowing pools/miners to vote for adjusting the blocksize limits based on what they see with market pressure and existing backlog, as well as their own infrastructure capacities. Pretty smart. And, free of all other baggage.
(http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf)So far I think this is the most sound proposal for block size increase I've seen. Allows Core to dynamically expand - and more importantly, contract - allowing pools/miners to vote for adjusting the blocksize limits based on what they see with market pressure and existing backlog, as well as their own infrastructure capacities. Pretty smart. And, free of all other baggage.
Jeff has been the most reasonable of all developers if what I've read is to be believed. I hope they can all agree on a proposal before the end of the year. I think a little healthy animosity among developers is good for Bitcoin but they shouldn't set a precedent of taking their ball and going home every time an argument arises.
The current situation strikes me as parents divorcing over disagreements on how to best raise the kids...
Good job OgNasty! 
