I agree that this pull would represent an incremental improvement in the BP ownership governance language. However, I am with David Moss in calling for this NOT to be merged prior to launch. There is the beginning of western/english-language community consensus appearing for this change, but I do not see broad Chinese and Korean-language community consensus added here. (In the form of Github comments.)
To merge without substantial additional consensus would be, I think, a mistaken use of power, allowed to slide by the fact the the github repo happens to be in the control of largely English-language persons. The symbolic impact and potential damage of changing wording that is explicitly-laid-out in the EOS Go Forums governance announcement without strong consent from most or all of the BPCs listed could be as bad, or worse, in long-term impact, than leaving the wording as it is in order to respect the good consensus already achieved and needed for a smooth and uncontested launch.
If broad Chinese and Korean assent and consensus (resembling that shown in the EOSGo forums post) can be achieved in the time remaining before launch, then I would support the change. If a high level of CN/KR consensus cannot be achieved, I do not support this or any other discretionary change to governance language before launch. (Aside from the necessary changes made up to this point to clean up unfinished or mis-worded RCs and to resolve inconsistencies between the Constitution and incorrectly-specified dispute-resolution forums in the RCs.)