Disheartening. I've spoken to him/her and found him/her rational, talented, and a huge asset. But I don't care for ABC or SV, so where does that leave me?
The checkpoint is ok for me since we used that before and we all agree the chain is "the right one" up to that point. The reorg depth was not discussed or analyzed.
For me the checkpoint change was rushed, but I understand BCH was under threat. Most of the concern comes from BCV supporters: they want a chain more easy to attack.
If some hash power from SV is enough to put BCH under threat, then we have a tremendous problem. We need to attack test net in the lab to harden against that.
We've seen this a few times already early forks were overruled by Core instead of POW, segwit was soft forked in and you have to run it now. You're in denial.
In early forks caused by bugs miners are incentived to upgrade. Respect later forks, what was the solution? BCH. Segwit was a soft fork, is not comparable, anyway, we forked away.
The decision making behind it was pretty simple though. Since there was the threat of attack from dishonest miners, they imeneted some protection. It is an old concept in blockchain.
Blockchain was the invention of Satoshi that solved an old computer science problem. It gave you a digital asset that could not be copied and pasted. Blockchain is what makes Bitcoin.
Yes, Bitcoin uses a blockchain but didn't come up with the design the novel invention was the POW mining game. A blockchain without POW mining is only useful in niche cases.
Oh, and I forgot when they say that adding checkpoints is turning BCH into a POS coin. What Ryan wants for BSV is closer to a PoS consensus system and weakens PoW.