> What does it mean when core says the "decision was mostly unanimous"?

That doesn't sound like something a Bitcoin Core contributor would say. Could you point me to where you saw that?

> How many people were in favour and how many against?

You keep asking for a vote tally, but that's not how it works. Bitcoin Core isn't like an appointed set of cardinals voting in a conclave. Core contributors engage in technical discussion to improve each other's understanding and see what concerns have the best technical arguments. That's why it's not useful for non-contributors to go into a PR and say "NACK".

> this is about "can I know how and the reasons why you took this decision? and what paramenters were considered?".

Well, good news – you can. I pointed out a number of places that you can go to follow the discussions.

> Can I say what I think when I contribute time and money (node) to the network?

Yes, please do. Don't even ask for permission. Nostr is great for that.

> Don't you think that maybe there is something important that needs to be better discussed here?

I've seen plenty of discussion going on on social media in the last few weeks. It has allowed me to explore my own views and improve my understanding. I'm sorry you're not able to find the discussion equally useful.

> and why do you assume I don't agree with this because I don't understand the technical aspect?

I assume you don't understand technical aspects because you keep asking for explanations that you can understand. I also don't see any technical arguments from you, only ideological ones. If you don't understand how bitcoin works, it's easy to go wrong by being "ideological". You want what I want – a decentralized bitcoin. We get there through making the right technical choices, not by preaching ideology. The choices you want would contribute to bitcoin's centralization.