While I really want this to be a good idea, I’ve personally avoided proposing separation of problem from solution because in practice it’s often impossible to decide “this problem isn’t serious enough to warrant a language change” without knowing what the language change to solve it would actually look like. For example, I was on the fence about Ok-wrapping and related issues until https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2107#issuecomment-323515036. Having a concrete RFC to study was what it took to finally convince me it’s just not worth the cost.
But there’s probably something salvageable there about deliberately not engaging in surface debates when deeper potentially blocking issues remain unsolved. In the anon enums case, I remain unconvinced they’re worth their cost (and I’m fairly sure that’s not an uncommon opinion), so we should really not be debating the details of their syntax yet. The real debate probably ought to be “do nothing” vs enum impl Trait vs “anonymous enums” or something like that, but iirc that’s not the debate being had on those RFCs right now.