I hope that Segwit+2MB gets enough support to finally end this absurd war. At this time it looks as the only non contentious alternative. I don't like the idea of non unanimous hard forks, nor UASF. Whatever is supported by an almost unanimous majority is ok to me at this time (Well, except BU/EC as I am totally against it).
Seemed like a decent compromise to me. Core programmers snubbing it was disappointing.
So, no comment from anyone at Core at all. Is it totally dead in the water?
If Core is invited into the discussion to merely rubberstamp an agreement, then why should they participate more?
They are not going to agree to a hardfork, so why come up with an agreement that involves a hardfork.. and if there is a hardfork, that means a change in governance.. why would they participate in that? Core members say these kinds of things, but no one seems to want to hear them, and act as if they are not responding and come up with some kind of supposed compromise that include "no go" and unnecessary terms.
Their incentives to avoid a hard fork aren't really to do with power, more to do with what their preferred method of scaling is (offchain scaling combined with a fee market on the chain, from what I can gather).
Oh yeah ... it's coming. 
