I, as I suspect is probably the case with most people, do not really fall within either of the mentioned categories. Given the advice in the OP I shall put Group B. Ultimately, I trust in Philip as a leader to make the right decision most of the time, and would see him as the best candidate for the position of leader. However, making an autocratic decision such as this that goes against the vote of the community I see as wrong. Had there not been a vote, and had it not been accepted as a decision at least initially, I would have looked upon the decision much more favorably. Even if I feel that the decision was wrong, this would at least merely be a continuation of what was apparently our policy at the end of gen 4.
One of the main advantages of having a leader such as this is that they can rule to an extent through common sense; it is not essential for everything to be laid out perfectly. I would hope that Philip could see which proposed mechanics changes are appropriate and which aren't, rather than having to flatly reject all changes. Even if this may make his job slightly harder, I would hope that as a leader Philip would be committed enough to deal with each case as it comes. Certainly in the case of glitches and sleep clause, precedents have been set in previous generations, both by us in removing them and by gamefreak, as these mechanics have been seen previously in games. This means that these are sensible proposed mechanics changes, rather than things that have not been seen previously, such as the removal of crits.
So in conclusion I would like Phil to continue his leadership, but I feel that the decision in this case was wrong. A few picky users can be easily dealt without without having to compromise the game and go against the will of the community as a whole. The decision shows something of a lack of faith in the community and the common sense of its members.