I did read your post, and I thought about it. However it sounds like everything is already possible using the containers approach. Therefore it appears to be a suggestion primarily for a particular kind of optimisation. Discussion of performance without verifiable benchmarks and measurements is pretty pointless. That makes it hard to justify or even comment on its appropriateness.
Further it should be a well-known issue that we get far, far more feature suggestions than we can possibly deal with. Yet again, I must make it clear that this is not because we don't like anyone's ideas; we'd do all of them if we could. It is solely a problem of resources. We'd need 10x as many employees to do everything everyone asked of us, and in such a scenario, I am certain people would respond by asking for another 10x as many suggestions. It will never end. So we must be pretty ruthless about how we prioritise requests.
If you read our suggestion guidelines, we include some advice on what we consider a higher priority request. In particular see this section from the suggestion guidelines:
ideally the suggestion should make something possible that was previously impossible. Otherwise ideally it makes something that was previously very difficult significantly easier. If it's not clear that either is the case - especially if it's adding a second way to do something that's already possible - it will likely be declined.
I'm afraid in this case what you are suggesting appears to already be possible by the containers approach and so falls in to this category. If you want to increase the chance that suggestions are seriously considered, I'd advise to read those suggestion guidelines carefully and do your best to follow them. Otherwise you will just end up making lots of suggestions that are unlikely to be accepted due to having to ruthlessly prioritise things, and frustration may result.
It's unreasonable to compare a few people working in an office in south-west London to a multi-national, trillion-dollar global megacorporation with over 160,000 employees which also has sole control over significant sections of the software industry (and in my opinion abuses such control, which was the main purpose of my complaint to the CMA).
I can see how it is frustrating when users ask for things and regularly run in to the fact we have limited resources. However it is a fact of life. We cannot do everything. If people ask 100 things of us we can maybe do 10, during which time people will ask for another 100 things. It's just how it works. While I accept this can be frustrating, I must warn you that this is not an excuse to proceed to make even stronger demands, or start to make strong criticisms of us solely because we are unable to complete a superhuman amount of work. This has in fact in the past led a very small number customers to be abusive, which is compeletely unacceptable. This is one of the reasons we include in our Forum & Community guidelines:
Demanding impractical measures or infeasible solutions. If we say we can’t do something, it’s not because we don’t want to, or we’re being difficult, we genuinely can’t do everything!
Please note that in extremis continuing along such a path may result in moderation action. As I have gone to pains to explain, this stems from the sheer fact that we have limited resources and cannot do everything everyone asks of us. If you disregard that and resort to demanding things in even stronger terms, this is the point at which we may turn to moderation action.