For someone like Elliot, the current proposal is as follows.

Lets say his aim is to develop an image with closures in it. We will
call this image 3.10-closures

He would take a fixed starting point... preferably 3.x-build This image
is 3.x with the latest version of all tools (MC with atomic loading etc)
and a couple of additional packages namely Packages and Tasks.

Packages defines the packages which may be loaded that are managed
external to the kernel, and the relationships between them. This could
include the compiler and other kernel packages, if they are maintained
as a common package that all forks may adopt.

Tasks defines actions that may be applied to the kernel image to acheive
particular aims, such as loading all tests, loading fixes, and preparing
the image for release.

Elliot would then develop a "Task" which may combine the loading of
updated packages, and change sets, and fixes to the image. The task is
essentially a script, though if defined as a task it can define
pre-requisites.
Essentially all I am saying is that I just dont think that an mcm will
cut it, I think that each task needs to be crafted to a known fixed point.

While Elliot is developing 3.10-closures. Bob is also able to make test
builds of 3.10-closures+mantis fixes+tests

So the next release becomes a selection of packages and tasks.

Keith