Coinbase already "rejected" the plan but i reject Coinbase too 

http://www.coindesk.com/coinbase-ceo-rejects-bitcoin-hard-fork/

Surely i will not follow Classic with no real devs or a roadmap in place. At this stage, I want core!

...or maybe they just have a different view?

Not sure if I made myself clear enough, in case I haven't:
The appeal of Bitcoin, the sales pitch, was that Bitcoin is immune to human failings, corruption, etc., that instead of needing to trust people, it's sufficient to trust in math ("backed by math").
Turns out no -- just like everything else, you got to trust people, in this case a bunch of manchildren who'll never play nice together.
Same dirt, same accusations of corruption, same stalemates due to shittily defined terms. Same shit, different wrapper.

---

*also unsure if the Mechanical Turk bit is misleading, since it means "Amazon" to most people nowadays. The mechanical Turk was a fake chess playing robot.

OP it seems that you have completely misunderstood that meeeting. The people who were present there represent themselves as individuals. There is no guarantee that their HF proposal will reach consensus among the developers, users nor miners. The statement does require them to submit a proposal and code between April and July.

No but that's a good working base.

If all political parties agree on a law proposal, it's a good sign.
Even if after you gotta put the proposal to a referendum and that in the end, the people will still have to vote

Then they are left in the dust. They will be required to update or loose millions of $ and thousands of customers.

They are just expressing their view.

Yes. Either you have not read the statement or you have not understood it properly. The people who attended there (e.g. Matt) can't represent all of the people contributing to Core. There isn't a guarantee that the proposal will be accepted by any group.

Nobody mentioned anything about '2 MB code'.

They can't do much anyhow.

Exactly. These clueless people really need to stop bothering the people doing to work. It's one thing to ask questions && discuss technicalities, making baseless demands and accusations is another.

If you think that everyone from Core was represented here, there is something wrong with your comprehension skills (how many times does one have to tell you this?). There is zero guarantee of anything aside from a proposal and code (if they don't want to ruin their reputation and trust). I've even seen people running around and stating that the HF will come as soon as the miners adopt it, ergo people need to do less talking and more reading.

I didn't have to be there. This was said several times by several people, you just have to do an adequate amount of reading. There are also developers who have voiced disagreement over the meeting (e.g. maaku). You're free to ask these people directly on IRC, but you will get the same answer. Just because person X is part of Core and person X signed a statement, that does not mean Core (as a group, i.e. everyone) signed the statement. However, the chances of the proposal being rejected by the developers themselves are slim (unless they add more changes aside from the block size increase).