As far as I am concerned, it is the developers that should be discussing the block size issue. Not every n00b to read some biased article on one side or another.
I agree with this to an extent. But Gavin and Hearn also skipped that discussion by releasing a BIP101-coded client. So there's that.
It's not like they just released it out of nowhere, the discussion has been going on for years. Gavin even posted the question whether or not that approach was a good idea or not back in spring.
That's not the point. I'm saying it became a question (particularly for miners) of whether or not to run the code. That isn't exactly within the scope of "it is the developers that should be discussing the block size issue." That's not up to developers.
Whether or not it's been discussed for years, the approach (especially lowering consensus to 75%) was reckless. Nick Szabo wasn't bullshitting about contentious hard forks and civil war.