I think it would be absolutely a
better policy to give maintainers freedom to bump to a new release
series when the current release series becomes unmaintained upstream,
with some guidelines and pointers on a responsible way to manage this
process.
I don't necessarily have an issue with the update policy... I think there is an expectation that EPEL
would be more restricted in that regard - and it does have an exception for security purposes.
Kevin gave excellent direction here; referencing the overhead that's required for
maintaining an EPEL package. That said, some people wouldn't want to deal with it - regardless of their level of expertise.
That is completely understandable, and isn't a bad thing. You can maintain a package for Fedora and choose not