Maybe Gavin is feeling a bit burned in his recent attempts at being a "benevolent dictator" (his words, not mine) and even Gavin having had asserted that a benevolent dictator would be a good thing for bitcoin in the short term. In September 2015, he was going around asserting that Mike Hearn would be the benevolent dictator of XT (assuming XT would be hardforked into becoming the "new" bitcoin). I mean, jesus fucking christ, a guy has to lose some credibility in the community by the subsequent rage quit of someone who just a few months earlier would have had the potential of becoming the "benevolent dictator" of the "new" bitcoin.
Anyhow, Gavin comes off as a bit bitter about bitcoin consensus and bitcoin governance and seems to strongly suggest that bitcoin's governance has to be fixed, but then is a bit dodgy about that being the problem and continuing to insist that a technical fix is an emergency, while at the same time taking digs at the "broken" nature of bitcoin's governance .
In any event, his various assumptions and presentations of issues are losing their coherence and interferes with his objectivity and credibility as a trustworthy speaker.
Bitcoin governance does not have to "be fixed" in any way.
It is working perfectly and any attempt at highjacking it will miserably fail.
That is my sense, too.
In the past six months or so, there were a lot of various misleading assertions that XT and Classic were variations of technical fixes to bitcoin, when in fact they were really aimed at fixing some non-existent governance problem... and in the meantime creating a controversy, drama and media attention and forum trolls (shills) in order to make it appear as if there really was some kind of governance problem in bitcoin.
Maybe a bit of brilliance, but in the end, it seems as if a quite a few people are catching on that the controversy was purposefully created.