Pfft. I'm not going to mislead people by failing to call it what it is-- going to have some secret meeting where you are massively outnumbered with no strong negotiator on your side where you let yourself get compelled to commit to random things which are either largely meaningless or violate other people's trust and confidence in you (or, in fact, commitments you made to others before leaving) is a truly foolish move, if not quite "publicly endorsing scammer-wright" grade.
It's not the end of the world, people screw up, shit happens, goes on on-- but someone here asked the question as to why Luke was going around polling segments of the community what kind of hardforks they'd find acceptable, and that is why. It is a disappointment because its likely to exacerbate and prolong some drama which could otherwise be largely over now.
But ultimately isn't that the nature of a system that is purported to be decentralized?
Various persons are going to come to differing independent judgements about what to do and how to spend their efforts and energies.
Surely, adults can feel as if they were forced into agreeing about something, but in the end, if someone felt coerced, then that person should retract and hopefully learn from the experience not to let such happen again, and attempt to do so in a way that preserves some of credibility... Also, many of us discover over years of living that there are ways to agreeing to things that are sufficiently general in order to allow sufficient credibility. Bitcoin is certainly no company with a dictator or a means in which a small group of people are going to lock it down based on one amorphously written agreement.
Anyhow, individuals are going to come to different conclusions regarding how to act and what to do and sometimes act irrational and burn bridges and sometimes burn credibility... but hopefully learn from those experiences, as well.