The nightmare scenario is for patents to get inserted into the protocol.
Lesser scenarios, but which are entirely plausible is for proposals which economically favor particular parties to be inserted by them.
I understand that this stuff is "the whole game" for bodies like the ISO, with companies like IBM being masters at playing it. Pushing "their thing" as a standard, because they have a huge business built on top of that or whatever.
It would be naive to think, with the sums of money at stake around Ethereum, that everybody is going to play fair here. You absolutely will see parties gaming the EIP process.
@bobsummerwill, You are bringing up some very important stuff. We’re working on what were calling the “Ethereum Consensus Project” (https://canonizer.com/topic/210-Ethereum-Consensus-Project/1) at Canonizer.com. It would be great to start a topic to see if some consensus can be built around some of your ideas. For example, we need to get a topic started around the Ether EIP process. Would you mind helping us craft a topic around your ideas so we can find out how many people do and do not agree with this?
Also, as we tweeted here: https://twitter.com/StallionCornell/status/1174439694643298304, we need help tracking consensus for (or against) ProgPoW.
I do not think that DCOs are magic. I do think they would help.
We also need to be more sceptical about contributions from anonymous contributors, whether or not we choose to change our process.
Do we need code so badly that we proceed even given these unknowns?
We should not be afraid of the "conspiracy theorist" tag when there is real risk to the protocol.