There is no hypocrisy there. I still disagree with how BIP65 was implemented. I also still disagree with RBF, since it weakens zero confirmation in favor of strengthening layer two payment channels. They did this without the appropriate time and consensus that I think should have been appropriate for such a contentious change, considering their previous position on contentious issues I also find their actions hypocritical.
RBF had 100% consensus within the dev list(acks all the way down)... Are you suggesting developers petition non developers for specific code changes where the general public can make decisions upon complex topics they barely understand and than demand the developers(volunteers) carry out their will?
This is madness! Is there any open source projects that work this way you know of?
I do think this is unprecedented indeed. I think RBF should have been implemented as a hard fork giving the market the choice this way. Bitcoin is far more political then most open source projects, we also have proof of work consensus. So I do think that Bitcoin should be governed differently compared to most open source projects. Essentially the general public or what I describe as the economic majority should be making these decisions. These are fundamental questions of who decides, I do not think Bitcoin should become a technocracy, you are somewhat proving my point here of the opposing ideology that I am attempting to counter.