Is the commitment "critical mass" too strict?
Let me start by stating I total agree with the principles of the "commitment phase", however there are issues worth discussing.
1. Users from my original Stack Exchange v1.0 site count for shit. I started Skeptic Exchange last November, while not being the most popular SE site, it was gaining a following.
The biggest problem was educating the user, as a non-programming related site it had little crossover with Stack Overflow, Server Fault and Super User. Therefore it was difficult to pick up new users who would 'get' the concept.
Now having attracted all these new users I have to get them to sign up to the Stack Exchange proposal over at Area 51. Many of them did, but as they were never members of the original trilogy their commitment counts for less than 0.5%.
2. Stuck in limbo. At its current rate the Stack Exchange proposal will require approximately 350 users. This will take months, that's fine. However, since the proposal was started new questions and answers have dried up on Skeptic Exchange v1.0 because everyone is waiting for the new site.
3. Complexity and confusion. The final hurdle is people finding it difficult to grasp the concept of committing. The Stack Exchange proposal is probably one of the most widely advertised Area 51 proposals. I regularly contact members in the skeptical community to tweet and talk about it on their podcasts, etc. These all generate a lot of click-throughs but very few actual commits.
Have other people found these issues with their proposals?