I think it's a good trend, with the advances in lubrication 10W-30 has been an obsolete or redundant grade for quite a few years now.
The better 5W-30 synthetics contain no VI's and most dino 5W-30's have no problem staying in grade over a mfr specified OCI.

I don't see any reason to keep moving the requirements bar higher for 10W-30 oils. At least in North America, nearly all of the new gasoline powered cars and trucks being sold call for something other than 10W-30 as the preferred oil. Leave 10W-30 at the SM/GF-4 level.

As far as the fuel economy starburst, who cares? The fuel economy difference between a current starburst 10W-30 and a non-starburst 10W-30 (assuming you can find one!) is by spec on the order of one or two percentage points under laboratory conditions. Anyone looking for a fuel saving xx-30 oil should be looking at 5W-30 or even a 0W-30 oil. Kill the starburst, nobody really cares about it.

I care about the Starburst. It indicates ILSAC included oils. For the 10w30 I agree it needs to go. Let it fall out of the norm like 10w40.

I don't think 10w30 sales are going to be affected by the presence of the startburst symbol. Most people using 10w30 probably stick to it because 5w30 seems too thin. They're not going to care if the symbol is there or not. JMO.

Anyway, there was suppose to be a meeting by the end of October. GF-5.com shows no new updates. Anybody know what happened? The spec should've been finalized by now.

Some people want less plastic in their oil and live in places where that 5 vs. 10 means jack squat...

What percentage of people is that?

Have no idea, but it does include me. Last I checked though, 10W30 was still the best selling grade.