I would call myself a moderate in this matter (perhaps a bit more than that, even).
As for ecclesiology, I say look at John of Antioch. He was excommunicated during an Ecumenical Council, and yet we both agree he was brought back into communion without disrupting the infalliability of the Council. In short, he decided to accept the Council as Ecumenical, and so was restored. I think a similar situation exists between EO-OO. If the OO can accept the Chalcedon (as John did with one Council), and the later Councils as well, the EO could resote them back into full communion, from Dioscorus to today. It would just be seen as a thing that happened and was unfortunate (perhaps like a ROCOR-esque situation), but that we both have made amends with.
Now, in regards to evangelism, I think this makes it in some way more complicated. If there will be a future unity, who gets authority over which churches? If a church is set up in a more EO country, should the EO get it no matter who did the mission work? And vise versa: should the OO get a church in OO lands whether they have done the work or not? These are issues we will have to sort out, either now, or when a reunion takes place. Though, after the reunion, no such problem will exist, of course!