Wow, that's some seriously selective quoting from the krackattacks link there. The one that is relevant to the question of whether or not OpenBSD patched early without permission is this:
> As a compromise, I allowed them to silently patch the vulnerability.
It's pretty easy to argue that OpenBSD doesn't like embargoes, but it's pretty hard to argue that they ignore embargoes and patch whenever they want to. In this specific case, the project asked and received permission to patch early. The fact that the researcher regrets this in hindsight is beside the point.
They were asked to respect the extended embargo from CERT. They argued against doing so. The researcher going "Well, fine, we had previously agreed on this date, so do it" after trying to get them to respect the extension is not the same as the researcher going "yeah man just release it now it's all good."
He regrets coming to that compromise when they pushed back. They still pushed back and did not want to follow the extension.
> As a compromise, I allowed them to silently patch the vulnerability.
It's pretty easy to argue that OpenBSD doesn't like embargoes, but it's pretty hard to argue that they ignore embargoes and patch whenever they want to. In this specific case, the project asked and received permission to patch early. The fact that the researcher regrets this in hindsight is beside the point.