It's tricky. I agree on the importance of federated diplomacy, and certainly hope that Mastodon is working with other platforms. But on the other hand, today's fediverse wasn't designd with safety in mind, and to move forward there are going to have to be incompatibilities.
It's like GoToSocial's interaction controls ... they're not a priority for other projects (including Mastodon), I'm not sure whether the FEP has stabilized, and challenging for to implement, so until that happens they're likely to lead to unexpected behavior which will result in some conflict. But they''e still a good thing!
For that matter it's similar to post visibility and blocking when Mastodon first introduced it in 2016/7. And sure enough it led to huge fights with GnuSocial and other impletations that *didn't* support post visibility -- if I recall correctly, Robek even talks about that in the post about tensions between Masodon and other platforms. But guess what, people wanted that functionality, and it' helped lead to Mastodon risking to dominance.
Of course it's not an exact analogy: Mastodon now has much broader usage than these other platforms, so needs to be careful about being seen as the big elephant in the room throwing its weight around. And the current team, through no fault of their own, also inherits the mistrust from Eugen's "Mastodon-first" attitude. So it's complex. I haven't been tracking what's been going on in terms of the FEP discussions, if it's really Mastodon making a unilateral declarative stance then I agree with Laurens that it's not a helpful way to go about it.
But on the other hand, I'm currently seeing a post by Claire on socialhub described as a "pre-FEP." So that doesn't seem like a unilateral declaration to me. So maybe one of the issues here is the tone of the blog post coming across as more absolutist then the reality. But then again maybe the tone of blog post actively reflects the reality! (1/2)
