Yes, there was mention of "site local as a license to NAT", but
there where many other arguments: leakage through IP, DNS or
application; the lack of practicality of several restrictive models
for site locals; the possibility or not to use other solutions for
isolated sites; and the complexity of handling scoped addresses in
applications. At the end, the tally shows 20 hands rising in
support of site locals, 102 hands rising for their elimination.
In short, it was not a hasty discussion, there was an informed
debate, opinions evolved during the discussion, and a consensus was
reached.
This is so typical of the modern IETF -- 102 people were persuaded
by handwaving arguments that "something bad might happen" if a new
and useful technique were deployed, and they are being allowed to
overwhelm the 20 who were willing to dig in and find and solve any
real problems.
How many of your 22 speakers had implementation and deployment
experience to report?