Nope, I don’t think there will be any interaction with these two changes.
Want to start a new topic on allowing multiple OP_RETURNs? I’d love to see that happen.
In the past, I think a lot of resistance stemmed from the perception that OP_RETURN is a temporary hack in need of replacement by some formal “data” field in a new transaction format. (I think that misunderstands the transaction format, and OP_RETURN is actually an ideal solution within the TX model, e.g.
SIGHASH_SINGLE.) So I think the strongest remaining concern is probably about the “fee structure” of adding extra data to the blockchain.
One conservative option might be to allow a total of N bytes across all OP_RETURN outputs, where the full, serialized size of the OP_RETURN output is counted. Also, I think we’ve just realized that the 220 byte limit was selected partially by mistake. It might be a good idea to select a new N based on the info above.