Wasn't one of the problem with Apple and GCC that Apple had to hack the GCC to integrate it with the rest of its tools (which obviously the GCC people couldn't care less about)?
When it comes to the topic of stewardship the situation is less clear cut from my point of view. I think there's a (very human) feeling of "I've created this toy so I get to decide". In part it's a good attitude: if you managed to develop it this far there are good chances you'll be able to develop it further. But sometimes it makes people a bit blind when something better comes along.
In that sense using technological reasons, or the cause of free software, seem to be more of a way to (maybe not on purpose) push away whoever wants to change the way things are run. But that's purely a gut feeling.
Incidentally that's what I tried to convey with "elitist arrogance". This kind of "we know best" and "who are you? what are your credentials?" attitudes. Though I am not surprised it only made thinks more confused to a reader. Sorry about that. :)
I don't know the full story about Apple and GCC; I haven't read all of the mailing list traffic during the relevant period, nor was I around to hear about offline conversations. Certainly I can see Apple modifying bits of GCC to make it more suitable for IDE integration and upstream not caring about that. Apple did have ways of getting such changes in, though; it's possible they didn't care enough to push them upstream.
As for "elitist arrogance", I think what you are getting at is that you see the FSF's policies as erecting a moat and a wall around GCC and telling the rabble to stay out while the nobility quietly hack away at their desks. If I have understood you correctly, then I see the argument, but I do not agree with it. As long as GCC is an FSF project, that's just the way things are going to be. I don't think the FSF has set out with the intent to be "elitist"; it's unfortunate if that's the way the policy is perceived. Feel free to correct me; it's possible that I've misunderstood you.
The FSF does not, on the whole, dictate the technical direction of the project. So the goodness or badness of technical changes and any "elitism" associated with acceptance or rejection of such changes is another issue.
Perhaps things will change if GCC ever disassociated itself from the FSF: another egcs-style fork or something more dramatic. There have been small rumblings of such a change, but I think such an event is quite unlikely.
Please understand that I don't think the FSF ever set out with the intent of being "elitist", and I appreciate what they are trying to do. Although I often do not agree with the methods, I am happy they exist.
I like your example of the moat. I think though that nobility is not very much defined in your metaphor. After some thought I think there is a strong sense of community maybe, where those who've worked there the longest are those who become the "nobility". And people do not want a "foreigner" to come and change their ways, even though he may back his ideas with facts and good arguments.
In a way, a method that made sense once, is used for such a long time that at some point it becomes more of an "ideology", like a nationalistic feeling.
When it comes to the topic of stewardship the situation is less clear cut from my point of view. I think there's a (very human) feeling of "I've created this toy so I get to decide". In part it's a good attitude: if you managed to develop it this far there are good chances you'll be able to develop it further. But sometimes it makes people a bit blind when something better comes along.
In that sense using technological reasons, or the cause of free software, seem to be more of a way to (maybe not on purpose) push away whoever wants to change the way things are run. But that's purely a gut feeling.
Incidentally that's what I tried to convey with "elitist arrogance". This kind of "we know best" and "who are you? what are your credentials?" attitudes. Though I am not surprised it only made thinks more confused to a reader. Sorry about that. :)