It argues that the page does not align with the principles of consensus building as described in RFC 7282, which is highly recommended for a thorough understanding of the process. The sender suggests significant modifications to improve the approach towards achieving consensus within the community.

One primary recommendation involves distinguishing between technical evaluation and community support. The current system assigns ratings of "Deficient" and "Wanting" based on perceived levels of community backing, which paradoxically presupposes the outcome it aims to facilitate. This approach is criticized for potentially leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy where proposals are prematurely judged without genuine consideration. To rectify this, it is proposed that these categories be eliminated, allowing for a more open and unbiased assessment process.

Furthermore, the email emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability when objections arise. Echoing RFC 7282, it suggests that all negative evaluations should be accompanied by detailed justifications, accessible via links to mailing list posts or similar documentation. These justifications should cover various aspects such as technical shortcomings, potential for widespread adoption, and implications for decentralization. Such a practice would ensure that discussions are informed and constructive, enabling either resolution of concerns or acceptance of differences as non-critical.

Lastly, the necessity of linking to Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) drafts is underlined. Since opcodes discussed on the wiki page are expected to have corresponding draft BIPs, providing direct links would significantly enhance the clarity and foundation of technical evaluations. This addition would serve to streamline the evaluation process by offering easy access to relevant technical details and rationale behind each proposal.

In summary, the email proposes a refined approach to consensus building on the SegWit support page by advocating for clearer separation between technical evaluation and community sentiment, demanding explicit reasons for objections, and ensuring direct links to BIP drafts are available. These changes aim to foster a more transparent, inclusive, and reasoned pathway toward consensus within the Bitcoin development community.