While there may be bias on behalf of the author, I don’t think this is reflected in the choice to make the implied yes the ‘anti-burn’ option. Ideally the implied ‘yes’ should always be the change from the current state of affairs, which I strongly suspect is how @ultraschuppi approached this.
If we leave things alone, do nothing, make no change, then we end up burning.
If we change things, do something, make a change to the parameter, then we end up not burning (or burning less.)
It makes sense to me for the ‘yes’ option to always be the option that advocates for a positive action, and for the ‘no’ option to be the current status-quo. I think to have the opposite convention, or to have a convention where this flips randomly, would be confusing and generally a bad time.
That said, all the points you made about trying to solve this in a more durable fashion make a lot of sense to me. It would be great if we could determine a policy for burn versus buffer such that we don’t have to vote and rehash the same arguments every few months.