Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

[Rustom Mody]

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:42:41 PM UTC+5:30, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 7/18/2015 11:52 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> among other things, a complaint about rejection of his desire for a 
> mechanism for subsetting Python for teaching purposes.

Sorry Terry if the compliant sounded louder than the answer. You asked:
> If the vast majority of Python programmers are focused on 2.7, why are
> volunteers to help fix 2.7 bugs so scarce? 

As someone who's been associated in one way or other with teaching for near 3 
decades, I'd say that of the two factors which destroy an education institute --
bar to entry too high, bar to entry too low  -- the second is by far the more
dangerous.

I believe open source is no different.  If every patch is to be accepted (or even given a polite answer) there will be no remaining working code.
And this will become more true the more the project is successful.

Super successful projects like the linux kernel are that way because the top guys are ruthlessly meritocratic: If your submission is poor you are told 
"Your code is shit"

If you persist, the "Your code" shortens to "You"

As I said it to Paul: I am thankful that python is meritocratic

As for that specific exchange I would rather not flog that horse further
[in public at least -- we can continue off list]