@Binky: I see your point and I agree that it would be quite a lot of work.
However, if such a mod was created then the discussion about bloat would become much more meaningful as people will have something concrete to base their decisions on, instead of one side praising the merits of a non-existent system and the other denouncing the many downfalls of the same (or maybe different) non-existent system.
Maybe this mod will attract people who don’t see a problem with bloat, and maybe the people who dislike bloat will realize that its not that bad after trying the alternative. If it gains sufficient support and popularity, the core team might become more open to adopting this philosophy and they will have a basic working model to start building on, which will make the paradigm shift easier and more attractive.
We will not have to fight a wave of new content as content will not make it into a mod by default, the mod maintainers will have to put it there by hand. However, since we agree that filtering out all the new stuff could be a lot of headache, I think you can understand why the developers who already have other stuff to worry about might not be as excited about it as people who actually have an interest in seeing such a thing come to light.
I like your idea of a clear set of ‘areas that need work’ and ‘areas that are full’. Why don’t we try to formalize that (at least in terms of content and not mechanisms) and make that a part of the guideline I suggested we come up with for a mod.
I hope I don’t offend anyone by what I’m about to say, but since we’re the ones complaining, I think it’s up to us to take some action to provide some sort of solution and see where it goes from there.
At the very least coming up with guidelines, “areas that need work and areas that are full” and then using that to compose a list of content that would make its way into our trimmed down version would be a step up from talking about the rather general word “bloat”