Conclusion on Version Proposal
There were many comments in favor and against the "Standardizing REBOL Version Numbers" proposal below. It was interesting to see the split in the replies.
An important point that came up in the discussion was about REBOL component versions. I should note for the record (and your general comfort) that those will continue to exist. So, you can count on those if you need that "lower level detail".
But, for the bigger issue of the product version numbers, we need to invoke the concept of a "REBOL razor". This is Occam's Razor applied to REBOL, and it is a primary rule in the REBOL design decision-making process. To best illustrate it, consider a conversation between two REBOL users. One tells the other, "use 2.6". This is easier to say than "use REBOL/Core 2.6 and REBOL/View 1.3". Here the razor is clear, the former is the better choice.
I think Volker said it pretty well too: "A perspective: there is virtually one big complete REBOL, and all others are stripped down versions. The version number relates to that big complete REBOL." Erru added that Sun did that with Java recently, so that may be a good validation of our thinking.
Regarding the concern about pointless /Core updates: In practice I'm not sure how much that will happen because the stream of expected updates to /View will occur within a downloaded View component of /Platform. Updates to /Platform will be much less frequent and more likely to coincide with /Core changes.