I think this is good but I added two proposals to the revised rules document:
Firmer deadlines (at the moment each stage is a "minimum duration") - these deadlines should of course be able to be adjusted if unforeseen challenges arise, in which case the Governing Board could approve changes to the deadlines. But having more reliable deadlines would make it easier to feed into the process as well as to know when changes should / could be made to systems to publish or use the data.
Clear set of criteria and process by which proposals would be assessed and accepted / rejected. At the moment this is not very clear. A clear set of criteria and process would make it easier for people to formulate proposals that are more likely to be accepted and lead to higher-quality proposals. It would hopefully also encourage more people to take part in the upgrade process, as they would have a better understanding of how their contributions would help shape the upgrade process.