(Request For Release Guru, that is ;-)).

I've been thinking. After some alkaselzer got rid of the headache this
to me unusual act caused, shouldn't we have some sort of simple round
of ideas where people can propose "I'll pull 3.10 and do it in such
and such a way". Or 4.0, or whatever.

For example, I would say: I'll pull 3.10 and will do it as follows:
- 3.10 will be a maintenance release in the 3.x series - the goal is
to have no incompatible surprises against 3.9 on the language/vm
level;
- 3.10 will be released on April 1st (6 months away. Ok, April 2nd ;-));
- The full image will comprise any package in 3.9 that a) runs all its
unit tests, b) comes from an MC repository, c) has a maintainer
(person or group) and d) is automatically loadable and unloadable.
Additional packages may be added at my discretion;
- The base image will be a minimal subset of the full image;
- I will unilaterally add stuff to MC to facilitate the process
(pre/postscripts, etcetera) if necessary;
- I will provide a daily build for upstream maintainers to test their
packages against.
- I will not touch, not even with a very long stick, any upstream
code. Code integrates or not, code that doesn't integrate is out. If
that means that 3.10 doesn't have Morphic and MVC and whatnot, so be
it.

A couple of these proposals could float around, the community could
debate them and when one of the proposals has the least offending
terms ;-), the community could accept them and name a release guru.

Advantages:
- It is reasonably clear to the community what they'll get;
- The release guru wannabe's can name their own terms, so they will do
just the amount of work they are prepared to do and nothing more. In
the example above, I would not do a lot of work :-)