I think Gentoo council, developers, and portage developers should
consider changing the PMS, to something like Portage Manager
Specification, or Gentoo Portage Specification. Make it Gentoo
and portage specific, and others adhere to that standard.

I understand the rationale behind PMS. However there is really only 1
main package manager for Gentoo, portage. I am aware of pkgcore,
though thought more of it was in C. I think pkgcore is still behind
EAPI wise, so not at 6 yet. There is paludis, but it requires pretty
heavy changes and does not seem to run along side of portage as it once
did long ago. Not sure if anyone even has a system that has no portage
installed. No emerge command etc.

It seems a few times I have heard portage developers make comments
about being limited by PMS.  That seems odd. To me the PMS should be
limited by portage, not the other way around. PMS should be based on
portage. Then other package managers must change to comply with that
specification. Rather than how things are now.

I have no control or participate in either portage or PMS development.
It is just an observation from having some needs. Which seems could
happen with portage. But can only happen if in the PMS. Which itself is
a process. Not sure in that case the PMS helps to expedite Gentoo
development, and may hinder. Since portage can only do what PMS allows
it to do. I think that should be reversed.

This is not saying drop PMS, have no PMS, etc. Just reverse, free
portage developers to do what they feel is needed for Gentoo. Then
other package managers can adhere to that specification. Make it
entirely internal and specific to Gentoo.

The PMS seems pretty abstract and not specific to Gentoo. Why even
bother with that? Why not Gentoo set its own standards for package
management? It seems aspects of portage are used for things like
Chrome OS and CoreOS, as well as parts of Gentoo. But seems more usage
of portage and not other package managers. Why not make it the
flagship? Portage be the standard, the specification/reference
implementation and others comply.

IMHO PMS should not hold back portage development, but portage
development hold back the PMS. PMS based on portage, not vice versa.

This will be my only post. Feel free to insult me, etc as you like.
Just an idea for others to discuss.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.