This is nothing more than some people trying to appoint themselves BDFL when none is wanted or necessary - pretty standard power vacuum stuff.

What are the technical disagreements, though?

Core: No changes to block size in the short term.

Classic: Implement 2MB blocks ASAP

Thanks for the summary. Seems like a very small difference, and I'm inclined to agree with Classic, so much so that I have no idea how people can be so divided on this.

Consider for a moment the quote that the person or persons known as Satoshi put into the genesis block; many people feel that bitcoin is not broken and not in any danger from the current block size, and do not favor having a process - any process - wherein sufficiently agitated groups can change the basic rules of the game should they garner enough popular support.

This is the "if it ain't broke" crowd. It comprises the majority of early bitcoiners. The notable exceptions are the large, VC-funded businesses that have a specific vested interest in bitcoin being used for widespread retail transactions, a task it is horrendously suited for, even with any arbitrary block size.