Hi everyone, At the PTG, the TC discussed what we can do about our stable branch policy and there was a few different ideas put on the table, however, something that I felt made a lot of sense was revisiting the way that we currently apply it. We all know that we're definitely a lot more resource limited as a community and it's important for us to start breaking down some of those ideas which made sense when the velocity of the project was very high. One of the things that used to make sense is maintaining a dedicated stable core team across all projects. At the current time: 1. Some projects seem to have some sort of power of their stable branches through historical reasons 2. Some projects don't have access to merging things into stable branches and need to rely on the stable maintenance team to do that 3. We are *really* thankful for our current stable team, but it seems that there is a lot of work that does bottleneck other teams (and really, stable reviews is a difficult task). The proposal that I had was that in mind would be for us to let teams self manage their own stable branches. I think we've reached a point where we can trust most of our community to be familiar with the stable branch policy (and let teams decide for themselves what they believe is best for the success of their own projects). I'd like to invite the community to comment on this change, the approach that we can take to do this (or other ideas) -- being mindful with the limited set of resources that we have inside the community. Thanks, Mohammed