This isn't Gavin/Hearn vs MPEX / #btc-assets - it's much bigger than that. Scroll to the bottom of this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Blocksize_debate
Of course the sides are bigger than the people I used to typify them. But I still think MPEX & Co have more coins and (more importantly) are willing to spend more coins to win the civil war than anyone else.
And I have no idea what the core devs would or would not do about their careers if Hearn wins. I just suspect they might be less enthusiastic about fixing and improving code imposed upon them without consent.
So far, Gavin is the only who's threatened to take his ball and go home if he doesn't get his way. But it could be a trend...
Did you see cypherdoc asking gmax why his XT node has an unreasonably bloated swap file? Classic!
Honestly, if >1MB blocks are this controversial then BitcoinXT will just stay what it is - a minor fork of bitcoin core run by no one except testers.
Say what you will about one side or another, but the ideas discussed and the questions brought up are important.
How best to handle opposing views?
How to hard fork bitcoin intentionally?
What does consensus mean?
I don't think debating it ad nauseum is best. Debate, disagree and if both sides can't meet - put the software out and let the nodes/mining/coins (economic momentum) decide. Bitcoin is bigger than any 1-2 or even 20 developers to decide on their own, no matter how capable they may be in their own right.