Yes, what I like is his statement that sez "In theory, code under a triple license is just as acceptable. In
practice, however, TDF has hundreds of affiliated developers working as
a team together, doing the actual code review and acceptance work. There
is a spectrum of developer opinion on your nurturing of a competing
project. Many core developers may be less inclined to invest their time
into significant, active assistance: mentoring, reviewing, finding code
pointers, merging, back porting, and so on, for functionality that will
not provide a distinctive value for LibreOffice. "
Of course, that issue or concern should be moot, since such developers would be disinclined from allowing LibreOffice from accepting code from AOO, since it would not provide a "distinctive value" for LibreOffice. And since we see LibreOffice consistently rebasing on AOO code, or using and merging in AOO code, that value they obtain is no longer "distinctive". Which shows that the idea that some core developers may be less inclined is false, since if they were, they would be demanding that no AOO code be used at all.
It would be like saying "We'll grab ALv2 code when it's beneficial to us, but not allow ALv2 code when it benefits the entire OpenOffice community". And such a statement is soooo outside the normal bounds of the concepts of a large, collaborative community and ecosystem that I'm positive neither the Document Foundation nor LibreOffice would claim such a (what could be deemed ) "hypocritical" and "selfish" point of view. There are developers who see the value in directly supporting LibreOffice while at the same time being sensitive to the demands and expectations of the larger OpenOffice community itself, and are aware that nurturing that larger community is in everyone's interest.