I'll try explaining this in a hypothetical scenario:
Imagine a week ago, all the witnesses had to do was click a little thumbs-down reaction when this pull request was first announced in the chat, or whatever system they use to privately communicate.
But in this scenario, they didn't. Instead, some stated they were neutral to the topic.
This neutral position became a debate about the merits of adopting "different alternatives." The debate became a credible threat over the course of 24 hours. This spooked certain people into a panic. Then there were powerdowns.
In this scenario, I fail to see how Ned had an opportunity to realize anything tangible one way or the other. Was this really the pull request or was it just a simplified version with only the teeth left in so people could see it means business?
On the other end, something had to deescalate, so that's why you're now seeing it all plastered on the blockchain ... if this hypothetical scenario is true.
I fail to see how this is the case. The existence of the shoddy pull request and not-so-secret private discussion make it less likely there's a secret competent cabal waiting to surprise fork out Steemit Inc., not more. Up until this point there was always the possibility that someone was doing that in the background and no one knew. Now there pretty much isn't.
Taking a major action in that scenario, especially one that had minimal immediate effect, is pretty much the definition of over-reacting, then, no?
Top witnesses making unsubtle implications of getting together and launching an independent fork in an attempt to force Steemit to do what they want with its stake isn't exactly de-escalation.
They've put Ned into a position where stopping the power-down would be acknowledging that the witnesses have a right to a say in how Steemit Inc. uses its funds. As a corporate officer he can't do that; it's malfeasance. The only way out of this now is for them to back down.
That's what most of them are doing.