1. it should specifically be noted that the pandaOps and testing teams expressed significant reservations about the complexity of focil in glam on top of ePBS. IMO the buck (or a large part of it) stops with them when it comes to shaping scope, as security is ultimately the #1 priority. to be followed by consistent cadence of regular releases 2. optimistically, ePBS devnets are still 1 month away, which could easily turn into jan. this is a large and complex change, readily admitted by everyone who is working on it 3. community input is valid signal, but at the end of the day they do not feel direct effects, only diffuse effects of scoping mistakes. eg. longer delivery times, longer bug/devnet cycles. the constituency which would benefit from consistency is also diffuse - it's a lot easier to argue for a discrete feature than the abstract idea of "maintaining scope discipline in favor of existing commitments". it's our job to understand these tradeoffs and honestly communicate them. client teams overcommitted on pectra scope, we should avoid this outcome 2 forks in a row(trent.eth)