The community is fostered either way, as noticeably every cap after Arghonaut and before Kerfluffle was made for OU. Some might then be concerned if we build for OU then the Pokemon we create might suffer in CAP. To which I wryly reply "if only we had a mechanism to acclimate OU projects to the CAP Metagame." Which of course now we do :). I also don't view the PRC as a bureacracy as much as a sounding board. We don't ask PRC members to implement thread conclusions and indeed in most policy threads we don't make decisions democratically but rather by intelligent consensus. There is no reason we could not conclude this particular thread by making future decisions subject to a 48 hour discussion and possibly a vote, which would be novel but also efficient. It should also be noted we have a policy cooldown period between each CAP anyway, it is not as if this thread or any others like it would be an unnecesary and unforseen impediment. Lastly, as far as consistency I prefer CAP be consistently flexible, because that flexibility has always served us well and allowed us to course correct, often in drastic ways (See the TL PRs.) I can't agree with rigidly setting us on a path of "forever OU" or "forever CAP." The Kerfluffle project proved there are benefits to either. It's senseless to suddenly now want rigidity to establish a "consistency" that has never previously existed.