There's really no reason to pile up windows and drag them all over. If something should be visible it should have a designated space, the screen's area is given, it's an illusion that with dragable/resizeable/pileable windows you can use it better. Even a PowerPoint layout is better than windows, ask a 10 years old. Maybe there's a problem with the solution you came up with, figure it up and don't look back.
Funny, the first UI principle I was sure about when planning Fontark was to eliminate the "windows" concept. I think that dragging and piling up windows is such a bad idea (a 90's customisation mania's flaw), it forces you to always deal with the interface instead of the face. A good fixed interface layout with contextual UI display is much better imo.
I can understand the difficulties and struggle one has to go through if adapted to it, I didn't try FLVI, but if it goes in that direction I think it is very good and worth the effort of changing some habits.
In my experience harmonizing diversity can be achieved by following and adopting only one principle... don't impose.
And by impose I mean don't even expect, because by expecting something to act in a certain manner we impose inside ourselves, and that's where the slip starts.
The primal foundation of any person is the right for self-determination, even if it is non-determination, copy-determination or a-really-lousy-determination etc'.
The problem is that sometimes (and sometimes too often) one self-determination is imposing something on other self-determinations, it can be very "tricky", but with the don't-impose principle you can detect quite easily "where the problem is".
A classic example is when someone is being "not nice" to someone else and the other person is getting offended, in many cases it is the offended person that want to impose the first person a different behavior. You can't, and you shouldn't. Even simply because you have to BE that other person in order to "know" what or how should he be. We can fairly easily find the reasons (and justifications) to our on behavior but we're usually not so good at understanding others in the same way, we're us not them.
Of course anyone can wish and try to create or maintain a tolerant environment, but it will probably be hard and not effective to try and achieve it by imposing it. If someone is not being "nice" to you, the best way to try and influence him is by self example, you can't make him be nice, but you can do it yourself, be nice to him in return for his bad-behavior (according to your agenda), this has the best chance to make the change, even, and maybe most importantly, in you own point of view.
So people can and should have their own self-determination, as long as it doesn't impose anything on anyone else. It's not a rule, by it's definition it can't be. It's just a principle to follow, very hard to at times, but to my experience it is the very basis of freedom and harmony.
Last thing is that this principle is not a receipt for anarchy! The broad rules(!) of the community should be (and does) clearly drawn, thus this principle can guide within it.