The headline alone doesn't tell us much. What matters is the context behind those statements, since people often push back on a label rather than the underlying practice. It would help to know which specific remarks are being summarized and what the speakers were actually proposing instead. Without that, it's easy to read motives into a few words. I'd be more interested in the concrete disagreements about funding, governance, and how contributions get recognized than in the shock value of a pull quote.
The video quotes the statement and its proposed alternative in the first minute. Which specific part do you think needs more context, and how would that context change its meaning?