The trouble with anyone deciding to 'update' the IRC protocol is that it will be a self-appointed person/group, so there's no reason for anyone else to adhere to what they say if it conflicts with their idea of what IRC should be. Personally, I'd probably end up being one of them since there's a very high likelihood that anyone wanting to join such a group for updating IRC are doing so because they want a lot of changes to the protocol - leaving those who think major changes will be a very bad idea (eg. me) out of it.
The same applies to the person who invented IRC - there was no reason for anyone to adopt his view on online chatting. But something NEW was created, along with the freedom to use it or ignore it - and we chose the former. I don't see a problem if a group of people appoints themselves to be "The One and Only IRC Designers" and makes something innovative for us - it will only work if it's convenient and effective, but that's exactly the sort of things we'd embrace.
The possibility to change IRC creates a similar freedom - it lets the majority decide what's convenient and what's not. I don't see how a door that is always locked is better than a door that you can open and close at will. I have problems understanding why we should restrict ourselves from fixing the door until someone builds a better house. I don't really want to wait another decade for a better house, I'd rather take a hammer and make it better today. I see no benefit in limiting people's creativity, I see no real excuse for embalming the current state of things forever.
It will not be a tragedy if IRC indeed freezes and eventually dies, displaced by something else. But in that case it will be very little for IRC community to be proud of.
