I could never describe myself as upstream, differently streamed perhaps, but yes, I am mystified and surprised by the community reaction.
Having actively followed the /= proposal and commentary in real time, I would have described the CLC and the process as very in-touch. I read an open and balanced discussion covering all the issues that have gotten airtime since the decision. I would have described the 5 out of 6 votes as uncontraversial, given a context of ongoing (and breaking) development and planning around core libraries. I would describe this view as popular. The estimation and extent of breakage and management of this seemed serious and considered.
The CLC is clearly working within a mandate and understanding that breaking changes are acceptable to the community, subject to cost and benefit tradeoffs that require ongoing judgement, by them.
For me, the lesson being learned is that we need lots of different people with the broadest possible viewpoints to write down our core principles, and find common ground, such as the work being done in
Participation would help with the demystification process involved in trying to understand everyone’s viewpoint and care.