Different point of view:
As a long time SL user - I am quite happy to wait until the dust settles and 
we have a stable release.   There is never any discussion in our shop about 
getting the latest release and who has it first.  Don't care and  as a 
commercial user I don't want to be on the bleeding edge of change.   The 
rational being that you do not want to impact the revenue stream, remember 
this is a for profit organization - the revenue at a personal level can be 
interpreted as your pay check.
I had a number of long nights and weekends due to changes that were not tested 
and didn't run on our several hardware suits.   We upgrade when there is need 
to do so and the version is stable.
They users here are not very understanding about what went wrong of technical 
details - they just expect it to work, they are not just robots but are 
developing a lot of other SW and HW for customers.

If you think about it a couple of hours down time makes the cost of RH's 
service a penitence.

One of my famous quotes is that "the change is totally transparent to the 
user".  
I had to eat my words once or twice.

Larry Linder

On Thursday 19 July 2012 11:14 am, Anne Wilson wrote:
> On 19/07/12 15:05, Federico Alves wrote:
> > What I would like to see is a faster release of updates, somewhat
> > close to the upstream.
>
> We have to take it on trust that essential, security-related updates
> take priority, and are done as quickly as possible.  The rest are
> good-to-haves :-)
>
> Anne