Political debates occur when everyone involved agrees that they're at "A" and they want to get to "B", but they disagree on the best path to take. A technical debate is when there is a fundamental disagreement about whether "B" or "C" is the better end goal.
In the EGCS case, the goal of building a cross-platform compiler collection was clear, but the process of getting contributions accepted into the mainline had become increasingly onerous for a large number of (potential) contributors. With LLVM vs GCC, there's a fundamental difference of opinion regarding the importance of modularity of the compiler stack (LLVM) vs speed and efficiency of the generated code (GCC).
In the case of node.js vs io.js, it seems to me that everyone still agrees they want an Ecma standards-compliant, evented JS runtime built upon V8 and libuv. If io.js had forked, say, because they wanted to rebase on JSCore or Rhino, then I could see the value in keeping both projects around.
As it stands, if I am a developer, and I want to help build an Ecma standards-compliant, evented JS runtime built upon V8 and libuv...then where do I go? node.js? io.js? If that choice is made based on governance model, then we're enriching the world of governance models, not the world of tech.
Most importantly, we should not spend any more of our precious time on this unnecessary distinction.
Change is the only certainty. As a javascript developer I now have two options to help me through those changes. That makes me happy.
Lastly, I love a good fight.