I understand this, but it still doesn't answer the main point: are you working together with tokio maintainers to move to futures-rs as soon as possible and even extend the interface of futures-rs more if needed?
In my view the separate interfaces increase the long term damage that new libraries are creating every day, and it should be higher priority to resolve it together before implementing new features in either of the two libraries (async-std and tokio).
We don't maintain futures-rs. But for the reasons you outline above (stability), our interface is also effectively done.
The choice of not using all of futures for their interface is outspoken the strategy of tokio. We have encouraged them to prefer the futures layers, but we don't see the work happening.
So, to answer your question: we are not working with them, the place of collaboration is futures-rs.
In my view the separate interfaces increase the long term damage that new libraries are creating every day, and it should be higher priority to resolve it together before implementing new features in either of the two libraries (async-std and tokio).