Should the word limit in appellate briefs be reduced?

There's a proposal to reduce the word limit from 14,000 to 12,500, and a lot of people aren't happy about it.

Here is the intro from Howard Bashman's (from How Appealing) comment against the rule:

The observation “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” properly appears to
inform this Committee’s approach to amending the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. As the Committee’s draft minutes from its April 2014
meeting reflect, “Mr. Letter suggested [that] traditionally the Rules
Committees do not amend a rule unless there is a very good reason to do
so.”
I am submitting this public comment because in my view “a very
good reason” does not exist for reducing the FRAP principal brief word
count limit from 14,000 words to 12,500 words, nor should any of the
corresponding briefing word limits be reduced by that ratio.
As members of the Committee are aware, in addition to my own
appellate practice, I devote a substantial amount of my time to drawing
public attention to the very best examples of appellate advocacy. In my
own writings, both on my widely read appellate blog and in my monthly
columns published in The Legal Intelligencer, I have repeatedly urged
attorneys who brief and argue appeals to strive for concision and to pursue
the fewest and strongest issues possible.