Read the chat logs before speaking about topics of which you know little.
I read the logs. Better yet: I was present, observing on #bitcoin-dev from the start of the incident until about 2 am EDT this morning.
The miners were not "forced" to do anything. They could have chosen to stay on the 0.8 side of the fork. Each miner (really, pool operator) votes with their collective hash power, deciding whether or not to support a mining-related decision like this.
I agree. Perhaps "forced" had the wong connotation. It was obviously persuasion, not coercion. My point is merely that you and the other respected developers used your influence to persuade the 0.8 miners to abandon the 0.8 fork. I simply suggest that this consumed some of your store of influence for future emergencies.
v0.7 nodes didn't crash they simply rejected the block. The risk is that v0.7 nodes would be vulnerable to attacks by double spends, 51% attacks and accepting newly generated coins from the incompatible v0.7 generation blocks. ...
Not calling this horrible outcome for 0.7 users a "crash" is semantics. Call it what you will. It would have forced 0.7 users to upgrade immediately.
TL/DR a planned transition instead of a "fork it and if people get fucked in the chaos, well too bad" attitude. Which do you think will destroy trust in the Bitcoin network?
Yes. I heard you make the same argument last night. The answer is not cut and dried. Should we "fuck" the users a little bit now (by making them upgrade immediately) or should we patch clean efficient code (0.8 ) to protect buggy slow code (0.7), thus risking a more serious "fucking" in the future?
Do not misunderstand. In the heat of the moment I might well have made the same decision as you. But decisions have consequences: (1) Bad code was protected and (2) influence born of community respect was spent. By being aware of those consequences, you might be better prepared to guard against their potential repercussions.