This post from Ghostcrawler on a discussion of warriors in PvP and their current woes mentions that the devs are 'currently discussing' the penalties warriors have to go through to switch stances. It's no secret that I think stance penalties are an outmoded concept, especially as I've been leveling my two DK's (one horde, one alliance) and getting to play with DK presences. As is pointed out, warriors not only have the stance penalty itself to consider, they also face losing most of their rage when they switch stances and they have to deal with abilites that they can only use in certain stances. It's one of the better explanations of the threefold disadvantage of stances and one I wish I'd come up with myself.
I realized when I got Rune Strike that it was like Revenge, only better in that it could be used in any presence. So if you are a soloing blood DK in blood presence, you can use Rune Strike as a source of high DPS without once switching a presence. And even if you did need to switch to use it, switching presences merely costs you a rune which will regenerate fairly quickly, it doesn't dump all of your runic power. This is just one example of how warrior stances penalize the warrior in three ways (loss of rage, inability to use certain abilities in certain stances, direct stance penalties) which really seems overly restricting. It's fine to say you want warriors to feel unique, but perhaps making them feel uniquely hampered isn't the way to go.
Ghostcrawler only says "This is something we are discussing" so I can only hope the discussion is productive. I don't mind there being pluses and minuses to stances, but the cost seems pretty high for meager benefits nowadays.