Your comment makes it sound like RMS tried to stop it from getting merged into core.
Whereas the mail in your link just shows that RMS wanted to discuss whether it should have a generic "LSP" name or not (i.e. retain the original eglot name), which is a valid concern.
I actually feel the name is the worst part of eglot, it's not like it's a generic polyglot thing, it's really an lsp mode, it'll be one more of those hard to discover Emacs features because of this.
Again, it's because of naming consistency, which one can agree with or not.
My issue was your comment just pointed at RMS without specifying what he was being boneheaded about this time, which I thought was a little flamebaity.
Whereas the mail in your link just shows that RMS wanted to discuss whether it should have a generic "LSP" name or not (i.e. retain the original eglot name), which is a valid concern.