Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic and should not be supported?
If the pool operators were the only ones interested in >1MB blocks then this would fail since most users and merchants would reject their larger blocks. this is not the case however...these companies are supporting it too:
Coinbase OKCoin Bitstamp Blockchain.info (Peter Smith) Xapo Bitcoin.com Foldapp Bread Wallet Snapcard.io Cubits Vaultoro Coinify Bitso Bitnet BitOasis Lamassu BlockCypher BitQuick.co itBit BitAccess Coinfinity Chronos Crypto
Not more? Consensus is certainly at 1 MB then. As I suspected. To break the rules of the blockchain, e.g. by increasing the blocksize, increasing the money supply or inflation rate, etc, 10% is not enough. Neither is 51% or 75% or even 90%. You need 100% consensus. Otherwise you will just create another altcoin which a few merchants have agreed to support. I can not see a clear consensus here. On the contrary most exchanges and merchants are not there. Of course the developers won't increase the blocksize if only a few support it. From the list it is unclear what blocksize they all want as well. There are so many different suggestions and BIPs on blocksize, I have lost count of them.