There will be conflicts over time and bad emotions can be avoided if people keep some sort of reasonability. In many cases a long standing discussion turns into emotional battle where ones who care mostly are major proponent and major opponent. Rest of people is detached from discussion unless things gets too loud.
As long as we and Architecture Council rely on technology we can pick “hard” arguments and not “soft” deliberations. If issue is in technology and future changes affects someone plans/interest/contribution an SPI or extension possibility should be left.
By this approach each and everyone can drive specific part of system in own direction. A community can rely on one implementation of extension while conflicted party or parties can stay with their own implementation.
I know this is pretty naive description and will not work with fundamental changes. However most of these changes come from a believe that they are necessary to sort out important issues or ones which are impossible to be solved with current code base. I believe that as long as we keep this in mind we will be able to find a common language.
Cheers,
Łukasz