The inception of bitcoin wasn't created out of discussion of a thousand internet commenters with different agendas arguing and up-voting or down-voting each other. It was created as working code first. People gradually rallied around it and saw its potential later.
If you look at the discussions about what should happen with the block size limit embedded in the protocol, it is an acute example of how not to accomplish anything. The problem is not clearly defined, because it can't be agreed upon, because everyone has a different agenda.
Beyond this, every suggestion is filled with predictions about what will happen in the future. Technical details are thrown in from people with... "varying levels of sophistication" to justify predictions, and protocol decisions are mixed with software client decisions which are mixed with statements about what 'should' or 'needs' to happen with regards to mining, the number of full nodes, the ability to run a full client, etc. etc.
Bitcoin itself is a black swan / unicorn / paradigm shift as spectacular as any and was not created this way. The discussion should not be done with words. It should be done with code. Working software. If you aren't part of making it work, or able to convince someone who can make it work of your idea, you aren't part of the discussion.
Bitcoin was met with skepticism (and still is) and any modification should be as well. It needs to be turned loose so people can pound on it. Instead of 'this will happen' or 'this will work' the discussion become 'this does happen' and 'this does work'.
Working code or get the fuck out.