I'm Coptic. I'm also a convert, so take whatever stupid thing I think with a grain of salt.
From where I'm sitting, I am fine with most of what I've heard the EO say re: the RC and what they need to do to become Orthodox, so I don't think our conditions would differ all that much. I will openly admit that I don't understand some of what they talk about (e.g., Palamism/stuff about the "uncreated light"; I'm not against it, I just don't really get it because I don't think I've ever read or heard anything about it from an OO perspective, or at least not using such terms), but I don't really understand RCs, either, so I guess that's neither here nor there. They can argue about post-Chalcedonian theological developments among themselves, I guess.
As far as OO being in union with EO and vice-versa, that's an entirely different set of issues, and it's highly likely that delving into them to any degree beyond the superficial will land this thread in the private forum before you can say a "hiteni" for St. Dioscoros. So, superficially, I would not ask either the RC or the EO to "repent"...they were, after all, doing what you would expect people to do when they're convinced that they hold the truth and you do not. We've done nothing else, either, and I don't know that it would be right to make OO "repentance" a necessary condition for union. But this leaves open the question of what to do with the various anathemas historically leveled against individual saints of the communion, or sometimes whole churches (e.g., the hilarious anathema against the Armenians for the crime of not having cheesefare week as the EO do; oh, those rogues). I would personally be fine with leaving some of the more controversial saints (e.g., St. Dioscoros, St. Severus, etc.) up to local veneration of a particular communion. As far as I know this is already the norm in the OO communion, in that we don't always recognize each other's saints to begin with. That would have to come with a clarification regarding the true historical circumstances of the deposition of St. Dioscoros by the Council of Chalcedon, though -- i.e., stop anathematizing him for imagined heresies that the fathers of Chalcedon themselves did not even accuse him of.
As individual EO have told me in private that the Tome of Leo can only be properly understood in light of Constantinople II, I would have no problem with that as the professed understanding among EO of what the Tome meant (in that most OO I've talked to seem to greatly prefer Constantinople II to Chalcedon proper, and the substance of the disagreement with Chalcedon, at least among the Copts I've talked to, is very much tied to the Tome itself, as well as the anathema against and deposition of HH St. Dioscoros), but would then of course have more of a problem with those who make acceptance of Chalcedon as-is some sort of crucible of Orthodoxy (as though the Chalcedonians themselves did not hold a subsequent council to sort it out). I would not affirm it myself, nor am I particularly thrilled with those who assume that we (OO) must simply accept all subsequent councils, as far as I can tell with little more justification than the fact that these are the councils that EO themselves recognize. Some of them address issues that were not even problems among the OO churches in the first place (e.g., 7th council/iconoclasm).