Not only are the devs tied up, many things that are being discussed here (like pay the producer as an example) would require a full network to operate and certain features (in this case safecoin) to be there, which simply aren’t yet. Many discussions here are far, far, far in the future (like some potentially years ahead).
I am actually great they are happening, they are happening here and now. Those can be archived, but on one side for many there isn’t a consensus yet (like again, pay the producer), also very often because specific implementation details depend on other aspects and yet to come features, but are important an whether there is a consensus. As an example, if it turned out having super small safecoin is highly unpractical and inefficient (unlikely but possible) then the overhead a pay-the-producer-system means to the system would probably not actually have a majority of ppl behind itself anymore. Many discussions are often at a point where people give there support under a “it depends”, with dependencies which aren’t clear yet.
When these will be defined (and implemented) is unique to the specific case and can’t be answered globally. I like that we are talking about a lot of these things and have the time to discuss them in depth long before any specific implementation requirements might make it too focused.
I am not. Not everything that has been discussed at some points (even it has been agreed upon) has to eventually become an RFC or code. Things change, the world changes and so do priorities around what is important (to be RFCed and implemented). The things people care about the most (like a safecoin infrastructure, so we can build all these awesome other things on top) do come up again and again. If something doesn’t resurface anymore, that is fine, pressure to implement it has simply decreased compared to other things we want to implement.
Either way, we have the records here and a decent search and if you want to propose something again, it takes just a little bit of digging in the archive to make that one reappear and continue the discussion. If at that point one can bring it to the state to formulate a consensus-building RFC, great. If no one wants to do that, however, there clearly isn’t enough need to do it.
On a side note: I’ve made a bunch of changes on the RFC process/repository to exactly that make this easier and I very much agree there should be more RFCs (like this one) coming from the community. I just don’t think the network itself is in a state yet to allow us to formulate them.