In light of how the discussion evolved I would say that not only there is consensus on supporting the definition of a detailed policy on backports and the definitions of what are the requirements for regular releases vs LTS releases (other than the longer support timeframe), but also highlights a need to do it sooner rather than later!
This seems a job for the OMC, as it falls under: > makes all decisions regarding management and strategic direction of the > project; including: > - business requirements; > - feature requirements; > - platform requirements; > - roadmap requirements and priority; > - end-of-life decisions; > - release timing and requirement decisions; My contribution to the discussion is to ask if the OMC has plans for addressing this in the very short term. If working on a policy is going to be a medium-term effort, maybe it would be opportune to call an OTC vote specific to #11968 under the current release requirements defined by the OMC (or lack thereof). We already saw a few comments in favor of evaluating backporting #11968 as an exception, in light of the supporting arguments, even if it was in conflict with the current policy understanding or the upcoming policy formulation. So if we could swiftly agree on this being an OTC or OMC vote, I would urge to have a dedicated discussion/vote specific to #11968, while more detailed policies and definitions are in the process of being formulated. - What is the consensus on splitting the 2 discussions? - If splitting the discussions, is deciding on #11968 an OTC or OMC matter? Cheers, Nicola