It'll be hyped to hell and back for good reason - primarily consistency and beauty. But its not my cup of tea.. neither does it seem to be for some of us. Nevertheless, if they use a purpose-built kernel and start from scratch, to remove any conflict both in branding and in packages with Ubuntu, I may use it for convenience's sake. However, I look forward to playing with WMs again, once I get the guts to mess with Arch post-systemd. I can barely remember what packages I installed :P. Thank goodness for the fantastic documentation. The blocky *box aesthetic is now officially in vogue since the guys at Redmond adopted it for Metro! Though it really perplexes me why people are using PekWM so rarely. Its quite stable for me and can look better than Openbox. Its also in active development!
Thought Openbox and dmw were feature-complete at this point. They still get compatibility and bug fixes I think.
There's always Archboot for the script inclined. Although I bet most of us can cook up a nice bash install script, setup up the network, and grab it from git/what have you. Barring the occasional esoteric piece of hardware, where some fiddling with mkinitcpio might be needed, most modern machines don't differ too much install-wise, it's the post-install process that can be bothersome.