Why are you calling experts the people who don't see the need to move the blocksize limit, which you agree is needful?
I call bitcoin core experts because they are experts that is not disputable much their competition are experts too. Scaling is a complex topic. There are strong disagreements about what is optimal. No one has made a definitive case but everyone agrees bitcoin needs to scale.
A politically driven contentious hard fork that seems to be much more about who gets to control the future of bitcoin rather then actually about increasing the block size is a known evil. Bitcoin is intrinsically just a computer ledger. It's value comes from the talent of those involved in its ecosystem. The goal is to grow that ecosystem not rip it apart.
Increasing the blocksize is fairly straightforward choice but there is a civil war about that. What will happen with possibly more contentious issues?
We need a governance mechanism for future debates because we can be sure there will be several others. And I prefer a governance mechaism who is bottum up -hard fork and let the ecosystem choose - than one who is top down and doesn't support competion (extremely fragile position).
We don't rip apart the ecosystem by hard forking, not more than the creation of an altcoin rips apart the ecosystem. Remember when the first alcoin was created there were debates about whether that should be avoided for the good of Bitcoin. The endgame of a hard fork is the same : there will be yet another altcoin. And the network effect of the winning chain will keep sucking every human and capital resources which want to be part of this revolution.
