Thanks for your replies! It is a bit nuanced I really liked the notion of doing a governance which does not resolve the Tension of the proposer to be an NVGO. It seems to nail and enforce the purpose of doing governance.
I do believe that adding an additional agenda item would be best in this case from the perspective of honouring the process. My intuition would be to just make an exception, since it's the proposer who is objecting, and just change the proposal but it would weaken the process and would create a precedent that could be hurtful for the adoption. Maybe "staying true" would also enforce the system as package thought could be viewed as "cold" or "rigid".
Anyway thanks for your view on that one! Have a great 2018!