I think even those who disagree with me on the Covenant would agree that if the Covenant is to have any kind of traction in the life of the Communion, let alone to "work" or be "effective" it needs to be adopted by member churches.
But what we have unfolding before our eyes is the Covenant being treated like an orphan child. You know, the awkward orphan child that prospective parents feel hesitant to commit to. "How about we foster the child for a while first and see if it works out?" Conditional adoption is not adoption and that's what we are getting. Let's not adopt the Covenant some churches are saying. Instead we will "accede" or "subscribe" to it. In a way these are synonyms for 'fostering'. Although 'accede' seems close to 'adoption' there are conditions attached, so I go for this being a version of fostering: if the child behaves, we will adopt.
Well, let's be clear, pro Covenanters: we need this child adopted not fostered!
PS. Plenty of discussion about these latest moves are going on. Thinking Anglicans has the links, but I note blogs I link to having their say here, here, and here. Tobias Haller is sort of (by my lights) an adopter, so check him out here.