In short, both LDPS and the general LSB specification should identify many more pieces of the system than they do. These specifications should not pander to existing distributions but require only those versions that most benefit users and administrators. And then LSB should be aggressive about forcing distributions to update their products to conform.
And therein lies the problem: a total lack of aggression and willingness to be proactive. In fact, all of the LSB problems seem to stem from passive and inactive leadership, which is why I suggested a few weeks ago that LSB participant Scott McNeil should take over this project. LSB has more than enough talent and technical heroes. But it also takes testosterone (or estrogen as the case may be) to push a specification forward, and it takes more of the same to establish a clear and comprehensive definition and demand that distributions come into line. Scott has that to offer. And that's what LSB currently lacks.
The passive approach LSB is now taking may please the distributions and members of the Linux community who are sensitive to being told which standards they should use.
But Linux deserves better. And LSB no longer has any legitimate reason not to deliver better. Until recently, LSB defended its passive approach by stating that there aren't enough resources to lead Linux forward, only to document what exists. The Open Source Development Labs, which vendors are ready to pour millions of dollars into, should solve this problem, leaving LSB without any more excuses. So as of now, LSB, you are on notice. Get a leader, or get out of the way.