Personally, I would have liked that best: let in all the little guys that are round but aren't moons, and just be sensible about what is a moon. Let Pluto and Ceres and 2003 UB313 and Sedna and dozens or hundreds of other Kuiper Belt objects be planets, but don't mess around with the relatively obvious classification of satellites.
(I suppose if you squint sideways at the "dwarf planet" designation, the adopted definition looks something like this. But it sounds as if "dwarf planets" are no more supposed to be proper planets than "minor planets" before them.)
Ultimately, though, I think what most of the IAU wanted was a physically motivated definition that gave something close to the accepted nine-planet lineup. And the only thing you can really sensibly do given those two criteria is demote Pluto. In and of itself, that's logical. What dissatisfies me is that the wording of the definition as adopted is so vague; it could have been better.
no subject
(I suppose if you squint sideways at the "dwarf planet" designation, the adopted definition looks something like this. But it sounds as if "dwarf planets" are no more supposed to be proper planets than "minor planets" before them.)
Ultimately, though, I think what most of the IAU wanted was a physically motivated definition that gave something close to the accepted nine-planet lineup. And the only thing you can really sensibly do given those two criteria is demote Pluto. In and of itself, that's logical. What dissatisfies me is that the wording of the definition as adopted is so vague; it could have been better.