If you look at the HN comments from Jacob’s packaging blog post, I noticed a general theme and one sub-theme that is probably a bit more tractable.
Based on the fact that I’m commenting here I think it’s probably easy to guess that the big theme was people wanting a single tool. 
No real shock, although some people did pick up on the fact that if you don’t the tool’s opinion that you’re stuck while Python’s variety gives you a bit more freedom.
But the more interesting thing was the underlying theme of people being confused about specifying dependencies. Now I know we have for a long time tried to get the point across about the differences between packages and apps, but you won’t know that if the thing you first read on Python packaging didn’t point this out (and chances are it didn’t).
So for me, that thread was really pushing for something like poetry’s use pyproject.toml to specify dependencies so there’s a universal way to do that regardless of tool, and then a unified lock file as discussed in Structured, Exchangeable lock file format (requirements.txt 2.0?) for apps.
So maybe working towards standardizing how we specify dependencies could help us work towards more coherency between the various tools so people could switch between tools more easily? Or is this something like version specification where someone is going to tell me there’s a magical way some people really like doing it that I’m not aware of? 