Some of my observations
Some packages of the Framework are considering significant shifts that would include adopting 3rd party packages.
For example there is a discussion/suggestion for the database package to adopt Doctrine DABL for v2 https://github.com/joomla-framework/database/issues/18
I think all of the Packages within the framework should consider something similar. The ones listed for removal consideration by Michael are of the highest for consideration; is there something that could be adopted to improve the existing packages and reduce our maintenance requirements.
Framework + CMS is an ongoing discussion, there is definitely some angst with the whole direction of the framework/CMS currently and rightful concern about development resources.
I agree that developers looking for web application frameworks to build a product are rarely, if ever, going to look at the Joomla Framework. That being said keeping those as separate packages and adopting them in the CMS does have some advantages (light weight version of the CMS maybe); but the current implementation of the framework in the CMS is confusing at best and a disaster at worst. Especially in areas where the CMS results in it's own code plus the framework rather than just an extension of the Framework (forms anyone).
I agree that updating an releasing a V2 for the framework packages is more than needed, and should be expected. Some of that should be refactoring, and innovation, but a lot can be said about just updating things that are relying on outdated API versions.
Moving towards a Framework v3 and CMS v4 whatever direction is decided a legacy layer should be expected, with clear guides in the documentation for developers on how to convert/migrate. One of the ugly legacies of Joomla has been the 1.x to 1.5 migration, the 1.5 to 2.5 migration, and to a lesser extent the 2.5 to 3.x shift. Users have often complained about the difficulties which often revolve around data issues and extensions that suddenly don't function due to a lack of a legacy layer to provide some B/C in the moves. Don't get me wrong each of these moves was more than necessary, some did not go far enough. Developers also complain due to the lack of a legacy layer to provide some B/C resulting in significant refactoring and clients complaining about version incompatibilities. One of the things that has helped wordpress keep and grow market share is their effort to maintain B/C through 1-2 versions and effort to insure that the user experience for moving from one major version to the next is seamless and simple even when it is complex behind the scenes. This effort helps keep users and developers happy and engaged in the product.