The point of the topic is "what do Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, and Craig Wright have in common, and why?".
Bigger blocks. But why? I know Mike Hearn, and Gavin Andresen understand the ramifications of it on the network, but why were they pushing for it? What was their agenda?
They may have been okay with the idea of mostly SPV users and vastly fewer full nodes. I think many big blockers believe that non-mining nodes aren't relevant to the consensus. I also think a lot of people legitimately don't understand Bitcoin's economic design and think infinite near-zero fees are actually viable.
It's possible they had a deliberate agenda to centralize the network, but I don't think we'll ever find out either way. If they did, at least we know they failed.