Disagree. The most influential Core devs want to use the block size limit as a production quota, forcing fees up (and some TXs/users out), partly to focus the minds of devs on other solutions. They have said as much.
That's a complex economic question which is a straw man in this case. Just because they want to use it in a certain way, that does not make them a "systemic risk". You do have to realize that the block size limit can't be infinitely raised every time we start nearing the maximum that the blocks can take.
The limit was never intended for that and there has never been any discussion or BIP or similar relating to this _completely new policy_.
The discussion has been going on for years.
Also, how is he "wasting more time"? We have to sit around and wait for SegWit anyway, which is at least a month away. We can't do anything about that.
He does so by just complaining (in a rather nicely written way). This is just going to cause additional dissent between the community (e.g. /r/btc). I'd like to see actual proposals that help solve problems.
In order to avoid such a frightening scenario, Armstrong argued that we need to take a path forward that accomplishes 3 major goals:
Long term, we need to form a new team to work on the bitcoin protocol
I see nothing more than an attempt at taking over the keys of the main implementation (or control over developers).