OTOH, maybe things have changed since I formed that impression. At any rate, your willingness to do so is appreciated. As far-fetched as it sounds, I still hold out hope that one day the two projects can have an amicable co-existence and collaborate to a greater extent (than today).
I will share a story.
Awhile ago I was employed by Red Hat and, as we know, Red Hat has a number of developers working on LO. I was talking w/ our CTO at the time and suggested that it would be a Good Thing if Red Hat allowed all our code donated to LO be triple-licensed (MPL/GPL/ALv2) so that AOO could benefit from these contributions. He thought it was a great idea since it showed that Red Hat was all about open source and true universal sharing.
But when we asked the developers they refused to do so. The explanations were either (1) We refuse to contribute to permissive projects or (2) We have been told by TDF that they will not accept any of our contributions so licensed.
So the "resistance" in code flowing to AOO is, in fact, reality. My hope is that we can change that for the benefit of the entire OO eco-system.
The "enemy", lest we forget, is MSO, not any of the OO implementations.
If the purpose of the "war" is to increase userbase by stealing users from MSO, then having a single implementation that is broadly supported and has brand recognition is vastly preferable to the current situation with two forks, one of which has the branding, while the other one has the features.
Btw, the claim that Red Hat's CTO (or anyone else at RH) "thought it was a great idea" seems to be a bit exaggerated as well. The words you yourself used at that time were "... saw the logic of it".
This claim is false, and it's a false claim I've seen you make before. If you maintain it is not, please link and quote the email that you consider substantiates it.
If, however, there are, or have been, patches that could be consumed by AOO, I'd like to see URLs for those discussions and pull/merge requests. Thx!