Ok, so I'll elaborate.

u/singularity87 founded /r/btcfork , and set up the BTCfork slack, which I ran for nearly two years or something, while working on fork clients and trying to assist a little with other big block clients such as Bitcoin Classic and Unlimited.

I still mod /r/btcfork and the BTCfork slack, which is where many of the ideas around a minority hard fork were discussed, with many developers but also people of many other varied skills, over a long period of time.

Of course these places are now mostly inactive after we forked and discussion has naturally dispersed again to other places.

So I got a little annoyed at your "Talk is cheap" response as a reply to the btcfork link. Actually, a lot of effort is needed to get a significant fork of Bitcoin going. And it's not just deadalnix, myself and "a few others".

I counted today and there were 11 devs with commits in ABC alone from the point of forking the software from Core to 1 August 2017. And this is definitely not all devs who contributed to ABC in other ways, like reviews or suggestions.

And then there's all the devs who worked on other clients for the fork before it happened, like BU, XT, Classic. These devs from other clients had ALL been through writing fork clients of some kind or another to work towards scaling in the past. BIP100, BIP101, the 2MB fork of Classic, Emergent Consensus, you name it. And these were also largely the people who came together regularly to discuss the situation, and talk about prospects and ways that Bitcoin could be safely upgraded.

I bet the total reaches 30-40 devs very quickly, especially if other devs who actively upgraded initial pools, wallets, relay networks and exchanges are added to it, many of whom also chatted with ABC devs on various slacks including btcfork.

Basically there is an unfortunate myth that Bitcoin Cash was the work of a few. No, it was the work of many, many people, and should always be seen as such.