But on the other hand, the witnesses that discussed it are selected by the community to do what they believe is the best for the blockchain and what they did could have only taken place like this.

This is the correct statement. Therefore, we are in agreement. Discussions happened thoughout the week in many public forums. Interested people, including myself, participated actively. Then top witnesses met and decided based on majority. This is the way governance in a blockchain should work and did work.

Personal disagreements are perfectly fine. You can be fan of something, I can be a fan of something else. Governance should not depend on what an individual is a fan or not a fan.

I feel this is a step in the right direction and our chosen representatives have balls, unlike many of the "oldtimers", including Ned himself.