'lobbying on the kernel list' is not very productive.
it is productive to test the things that you are interested in (and especially be willing to test them in ways other than your 'normal' workload so that you can try and find ways that they break), but you also need to be willing to test alternatives proposed by kernel folks and be able to document (not just state) why what's being proposed is better.
it's especially not useful to show up from the blue strongly advocating the acceptance of any one feature and be completely silent on everything else
reiserfs4, Con's CFS, devfs, and wakelocks haven't had any lack of people pushing to get them accepted. In fact, they are all cases where the advocates went beyond being a benefit and many of them got to the point where their voices actually hurt the feature.
repeated demands to get feature X added to the kernel don't work
repeated statements that it's being shipped with distro X and therefor it should be merged don't work
continued statements that 'it works for me so it should be merged' don't work.
except for the outright demands, experience from people using a particular patch is helpful, and examples of it working well for people are useful data points, but they are not enough because there is always the potential that it's not going to work for other people or other situations. The more comprehensive the testing is the more useful the report is (i.e. desktop use only is not very helpful, especially after the first dozen or so people speak up and say it helps them)