The ultimate stupidity of all of this is the misguided notion that language is simply rational, and that it can be defined beforehand in its rational character by a committee decision. The fact of the matter is that language is developed by use. It's stupid that we are told "a spider is not a bug because a bug is an insect and an insect has six legs." Who ever decided that a bug meant a thing with six legs? Certainly "insect" does, but "bug" has always in actual use meant just about anything small. We sometimes even call a germ a "bug." Likewise it's silly that we are told an American bison is not to be called a "buffalo." Again, it may not be what is more rightly called a buffalo, but Americans have been calling it a buffalo so long that it's more its name than "bison." It's just like how a jackrabbit is not really a rabbit but a hare. Normal human language was never designed to be a taxonomical system.
Instead of having a committee-accepted pure definition of "planet" beforehand, the scientific community needs to realize that people will call something a planet for reasons that have little or nothing to do with science. Live with it. Normal people need to be allowed to set the "pure" concept of planet aside as something to work with in its own proper context.
To that extent, I think this new recommendation could be good. The reason why is because it already conforms to an established language pattern; planetary geologists, they say, already consider (some?) moons to be planets. A broader definition should be taken to mean that some things can be considered planets in certain linguistic contexts and not in others.