Deferring to their miners can mean a few things, difficult to know. It certainly means that the fork has the potential to succeed (which I still believe is the likely outcome).
On face value it's certainly sensible for a pool in particular to make sure they have plans for contingency if there ends up being chaos around consensus rules otherwise they risk retribution from their miners/shareholders.
You can go further and read into circumstancial aspects to try and read if this implies some kind of subtle support or the opposite.
The fact that they default to assuming "no" votes for non-participants implies a bias against, but again, the approach of deferral is ultimately appropriate. It just appropriately goes to the network, not miners :P
Deferring to their miners can mean a few things, difficult to know. It certainly means that the fork has the potential to succeed (which I still believe is the likely outcome).
On face value it's certainly sensible for a pool in particular to make sure they have plans for contingency if there ends up being chaos around consensus rules otherwise they risk retribution from their miners/shareholders.
You can go further and read into circumstancial aspects to try and read if this implies some kind of subtle support or the opposite.
The fact that they default to assuming "no" votes for non-participants implies a bias against, but again, the approach of deferral is ultimately appropriate. It just appropriately goes to the network, not miners :P