And if the network rules do change, it's not because a developer made it happen, it's because the users did. People keep talking about "hostile takeovers" and "power grabs" as if they simply can't comprehend this fact.
by going soft they went against node consensus.. thus its only having to convince 20 pool managers into a limited consensus, instead of 5600 node users..
this is another reason pools think soft is wrong because its pushing something nodes are not ready for, and it can change the network dynamics. but because its the pools that decide.
the devs however can take the glory if everything works, saying 'see soft is better'
BUT devs can blame it on the pools if it goes wrong. saying 'well they consented to it, they activated it'
Miners will wait to see if the nodes are in support before activating. It's hardly a nefarious plot. And again, the same argument applies, whether you personally agree with the code or not, Core can release whatever code they choose, Unlimited can do the same. Users can run whatever code they choose. If users opt for the SegWit softfork, cool, if they opt for a hardfork and a larger blocksize, also cool. Neither option precludes the other from happening at some point. We can easily do both (and probably should). Also, neither option is beyond reversing if it doesn't work or causes adverse effects. It really isn't the crisis people make it out to be.