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
In this case, 100% consensus exists. Hence why bitcoin = a single global ledger, rather than many disparate forks that disagree on the rules to enforce.
because small minority could block any change, thus rule the majority will to make change
That's fine. Nobody forces the majority to do anything. They can fork off onto an alternative network (altcoin) if they want.
so your wrong - no change is decission as well
No, you just have a questionable grasp of the English language. "No change = change" is an illogical non-argument and nobody remotely intelligent falls for that bullshit.
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 enabled by default, but Core developers used excuse it would be more complicated to change the documentation for this feature so preffer to leave it enabled by default instead.
Being enabled by default means nothing and addresses nothing I said. And stop spreading misinformation. See wangchun's ACK here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7386#discussion_r50386117
RBF is opt-in for users. That is a fact, and the only relevant one to your complaint here. In any case, I think you're confusing the real issue: whether a hard fork is contentious. Local node policies are very, very separate from the consensus rules of the network.
Quote from: sipa
This is not a consensus rule, so you're free to choose a different setting than the default here.
As I've said on the PR being linked to, I'm certainly willing to consider changing the default if there is controversy about it. But can someone at least point out one service or wallet that is not dealing with this correctly and has no plans to do so in the near future?
As I've said on the PR being linked to, I'm certainly willing to consider changing the default if there is controversy about it. But can someone at least point out one service or wallet that is not dealing with this correctly and has no plans to do so in the near future?
Quote from: gmaxwell
No, we avoid contentious consensus rule changes (e.g. hardforks); because no one can choose to avoid the consensus behavior of the network around them. Please don't mix up totally local behavior from the blockchain consensus rules.
Adding an option here-- even though there isn't any rational given to any of the opposition to restoring the original Bitcoin 0.1 functionality for people to choose to consequentially produce non-final transactions was already a purely political response to those desires. The continued attacks in spite of making that requested, but otherwise illogical, accommodation suggests that the complaining parties are not interested in a civilized dialog.
Adding an option here-- even though there isn't any rational given to any of the opposition to restoring the original Bitcoin 0.1 functionality for people to choose to consequentially produce non-final transactions was already a purely political response to those desires. The continued attacks in spite of making that requested, but otherwise illogical, accommodation suggests that the complaining parties are not interested in a civilized dialog.