Does he really says minority should rule majority instead 
If the majority cannot override the minority, it doesn't follow that the minority is ruling anyone.
The minority is just enforcing the rules that the entire network consented to; they aren't forcing anything on anyone. Changing the rules involves establishing a new consensus.
Consensus ie 100% does not exist in real world in most cases, thats why you choose majority as a mechanism for choosing consensus, sometimes over 50% is enought, but you might choose higher % up to a point where there would be no new consensus possible anymore because small minority could block any change, thus rule the majority will to make change (so your wrong - no change is decission as well, and only with majority will there can be no change to the rules).
RBF wasn't controversial. Who complained about RBF besides a handful of muppets on r/btc and bitco.in?
Thats just your viewpoint, I see RBF controversial and many people do not like it to be enabled by default as well, if I remember F2Pool complained for being RBF enabled by default, but Core developers used excuse it would be more complicated to change the documentation for this feature so preffer to leave RBF enabled by default instead.
In the PR discussion, 19 people commented (including people working on at least three different wallet brands) and 14 people explicitly ACKed the change, including at least one person who had been very outspoken in the past against full RBF. No clearly negative feedback was provided in the PR (or elsewhere that we are aware of) while the PR was open.
Your clearly talking about Core development process, where Core contributors vote. Much different from the whole Bitcoin ecosystems where hardly anyone follows Core internal development process.