I think we should prevent the risks of having a single implementation (censorship, centralization) with repository mirrors, more transparent release process (don't know how transparent it already is), node signalling for features instead of only miners etc. for example.

But I think the solution is not to create multiple implementations which will be very hard to be _100%_ compatible with each other _for ever_ while also making it harder to upgrade the network since now you need to maintain/care about multiple implementations.

You initiated a very good discussion, thank you. Here, have some more sats, the original post is "undervalued".

bitcoin

Are alternate Bitcoin implementations dangerous?

Scoresby

The question I was trying to get at is whether we should spend time and effort trying to increase the percent of nodes/miners who use implementations  other than Core (even though it increases the severity of a chain split). 

Bitcoin is permission less, but it's also political. 