Hi Andrey,
I think it's a very strategic and tactical discussion to have for the sustainability of the project, and the ability of adopters to produce added value on top of it.
IMO, the new cadence really helps the project to move forward, and that it particularly achieved by 2 things:
1. we release more frequently so contributors are more enthusiast as they get their added value delivered sooner
2. we basically dropped the maintenance branch and all the additional development/releng cost.
So what your suggest is currently going the other way of item 2.
If you wish to take care of item 2 fully, I think it's fine as it increases the value offered by the project.
But it IMO becomes an issue if this decision affects the project as a whole or more contributors who are not interested in maintenance branch. The agreement nowadays seems to be that the level of effort current contributors are willing to put into maintenance branch is lower than the necessary effort to handle maintenance branches correctly. However, if your involvement puts the balance in the opposite site, I don't think the project should refrain you from doing maintenance branches.
But then, there is only one issue remaining: what "SLA" do we put on such maintenance branch? Can we state that we support them? Or can we state that they are supported with lower effort and expectations? Or can we state that you are the only one supporting them?... It's a bit complex to clarify what's the exact offering to the broader community and what are the commitments that go with it.
It's not an easy topic ;)
