I'd be curious to hear other people's input, but I don't love the chore: type, and it's one of the things that people like to point out as a shortcoming of the specification (that everything ends up being labeled as chore by some teams).

As a casual observer I was intrigued by this proposal and I can see the potential problems with chore. I found that Angular removed reference to chore way back in 2017: angular/angular#13991

Note that this PR removes support for "chore" which was previously overused by everyone on the team.

It is worth noting that the current wording is citing commitlint (not Angular) and they are still using chore:

config-angular dropped support for the chore type, breaking compatibility with conventional-changelog, use config-conventional instead.

In addition Angular have also dropped style and they never mention revert, however this is generated by git revert ...

Proposed changes

Therefore the question is whether Conventional Commits should have an opinion on chore and style? Should direct mention of them be removed as a possible type and instead lump them into and others?

types other than fix: and feat: are allowed, for example commitlint and Angular recommend build:, ci:, docs:, refactor:, perf:, test:, and others.

If chore is removed then any reference to it should be dropped e.g. chore!: drop support for Node 6

Or does it call-out the difference in opinion?

types other than fix: and feat: are allowed, for example commitlint recommends build:, chore:, ci:, docs:, style:, refactor:, perf:, test:, and others. Angular by contrast dropped chore: and style: due to overuse.

References

Updated links to the other types:

• https://github.com/conventional-changelog/commitlint/tree/master/@commitlint/config-conventional#type-enum
• https://github.com/angular/angular/blob/main/contributing-docs/commit-message-guidelines.md#type

IMHO this:

Or does it call-out the difference in opinion?

It makes sense to at least link people to the places, where they can find a common convention.