There are no well defined "camps" in the community. The tendency to define camps is part of the attempt to frame the discourse around project governance in sing

There are no well defined "camps" in the community. The tendency to define camps is part of the attempt to frame the discourse around project governance in single technical terms like "block size". Those descriptions seldom make any sense to describe the behaviours of the diverse actors in the ecosystem, and only serve to muddle the deployment scenarios of various improvements to the Bitcoin protocol. Segwit2x did what it was intended to do, but what that was varied wildy between the various actors involved. It never bothered with deployment scenarios or any sort of definition what the intended end game was, and how it was to be managed going forward, not because the people involved were somehow incompetent but because those were not relevant to the initiative. Some saw it as a golden opportunity to pump an otherwise uninteresting hard fork, some as a possbility to do an ICO, some as free publicity for their startup and some to make a name for themselves as narrators of the Bitcoin story. It did all that and more. We'll probably see more similar initiatives in the future, but the community will probably care less about them going forward.