The intent was to come up with a scientifically useful definition, but it was semi-political to the extent that the IAU board just threw up its hands and slapped together an awkward compromise definition when no clear consensus emerged.
I keep wondering... if there's an ice planet named Hoth, is there a jungle or desert world called Coldh?
Larry, Moe and Curly. Besides, we need some good New York Jew moons. Why should Greeks get all the glory?
Yeah, that would be political, too. As I said, the scientific thing to do is to create a useful definition and then categorize things without prejudice. Would biologists redefine mammal because we have too many mammals? Would botanists redefine flowering plants because we have too many flowers? Would mathematicians redefine prime numbers because they're getting too big? Definitions are good-- silly definitions are bad. If the purpose of the definition was to "keep the number small," then it's not science.