Do those participating in this thread think sentiments like this are constructive or inclusive? Is this how we encourage participation from newer members of the community?
Framing this debate in terms of a programming pecking order is unprofessional. Many times, those higher in the ranks will prefer a more conservative approach, as experienced surgeons once resisted the introduction of the autoclave.
The problem isn't the change; it's what the change costs you. Provide data and make your case. Talk about what it _costs_ you, show evidence for that cost, and describe what would make the change acceptable. Do it without talking down to a constructed "other" of the people who've neglected to make the same status display you've injected into this conversation. That could be valuable input to the discussion, so we would could weigh costs and benefits as a community.
There _are_ costs associated with going ahead with MRP, especially for those with large 1mm LOC industrial codebases. This is partly why I'm lukewarm on the change, but I believe it needs to happen sooner or later and waiting for more 1mm LOC codebases to be born isn't going to make it any better. The suggestions that we consider the example of 2to3 I believe have been more constructive, particularly since we have this lovely language which lends itself so nicely to static analysis anyway.