I would certainly agree that there is no terminal value shared by all minds (come to that, I'm not convinced there are any terminal values shared by all of any given mind).

Also, I would agree that when figuring out how I should best apply a value-neutral decision theory to my environment I have to "plug in" some subset of information about my own values and about my environment.

I would also say that a sufficiently powerful value-neutral decision theory instructs me on how to optimize any environment towards any value, given sufficiently comprehensive data about the environment and the value. Which seems like another way of saying that decision theory is objective and universal, in the same sense that ballistics is.

How that relates to statements about ethics being universal,objective, person-dependent, and/or mind-dependent is not clear to me, though, even after following your link.