The predominate comment on my Camera Redefined article appears to be some variant on: "yes, I want your redefined camera, but I also want a smaller, lighter camera. If I can only have one, I want smaller and lighter."
As I noted somewhere in the midst of the series, size and weight are actually not directly linked to modularity, programmability, and communications. Indeed, Ricoh has built a (strange) modular compact camera. We've had compact cameras with built-in WiFi and other communications. In short, you can do what I ask in camera design and produce anything from a P6000-sized camera to a D3-sized camera.
However, a number of the emails I've been getting are forgetting one thing: lenses. If you want an FX sensor size and a reasonable zoom, you've got a fairly large lens hanging off the front of the camera. You could do a smaller FX system with limited zoom, no telephoto, and simple primes (e.g. f/2.8). Try hanging a 400mm f/2.8 off a m4/3 body, for instance. You don't save a lot of size and weight by making the body smaller and lighter in that situation.
That's not to say that we shouldn't have smaller and lighter bodies. We should. But I think that we still need a range of bodies. At the pro FX end, for instance, it would be nice to have an FM3a type of body, a slightly smaller D700 type of body, and a D3 type of body with all the bells and whistles.