Linden Lab's current priorities

Okay, my last topic was deleted, I'll admit it was predominantly an angry rant, but it did raise a perfectly valid issue that I think everyone would like an answer to; What exactly are LL's priorities, gameplan or whatever?

To put simply, every update seems to be getting worse for the bugs and damage that they are causing. The exception being 1.10 but even then, it had bundled features that went less than smoothly.
So let me describe what I figure to be an ideal schedule of updates:

Basically, we'd have two categories of updates; new features and bug-fixes/performance.

New features
The "New Feature" releases are just that, releases containing new features. These would be fairly infrequent, and bundle a load of stuff together. Basically using the current example, 1.11 and 1.12 should have been one release working something like snapshots as a release being 1.11a, and groups being 1.11b. 1.11a is released first and given a testing period. Once it is considered complete, it is bundled into 1.11b (which becomes 1.11 unless a 1.11c is on the horizon or whatever) and is given another testing period.
By testing period what I mean is that it goes into Preview, and is not released until bug reports stop coming in. Obviously it may be unrealistic to do this for all bug reports as many might be minor, however lets just say for major ones, or minor ones that are likely to be a large annoyance. E.g interface glitches when building. You then give it another week, if nothing big comes up, it can be considered complete. At this point you take a clone of a chunk of the main-grid into the preview grid (as normal) and apply the update exactly as you will in the main-grid itself, and test again for another week or so.
This testing strategy is long-winded, but it makes for a much more robust release of new features, which are usually the things that create problems. As a note, in regards to these things you really need to listen to preview resident feedback, sure we're a more picky bunch than regular users, we're often more vocal, but we're also usually a good indication of a flop to come.

Bug-fixes/Performance
The other type of release is a bug-fix or performance (or both) release. These are more frequent, as bug fixes and performance are great to have quickly. A bug-fix release should be tested by all Linden Labs employees, and the Preview grid if possible (deploying immediately) and be tested for a minimum of 24 hours unless the bug-fix is absolutely critical (e.g a major exploit).
Perfromance releases should be Previewed too, but for longer than a bug-fix version. If a bug-fix version needs to be released sooner than this preview period (similar to the new-feature one, but due to being smaller in scale should be quicker) then the bug-fix should be the only thing released. Don't bundle performance changes or minor bug-fixes/tweaks in with urgent bug-fixes, as you ask for trouble that way.

Preview grids
In essence this requires two preview grids like we have now, and they'd do what they're doing right now. One is a 'bug-fix/performance' preview grid, ie for 1.11.x releases. The other is for the upcoming version (in this case 1.12).
However, using the model I mentioned, instead of having a 1.11 and 1.12 grid to start, we would have had a 1.10.x grid, and a 1.11 grid, then a 1.11.x grid and a 1.12 grid. This way both small updates and big updates can be previewed.

Conclusion
The main idea here is to split the new features from the fixes. Because 1.11 while it is supposed to address some griefing concerns, it has been overshadowed by improperly tested and tweaked new features. As I see it in fact, despite much criticism about the new snapshots, the only things to change were bug-fixes, no other feedback was addressed. Really we should have had a 1.10.x release to help with griefing, and 1.11 being bundled into 1.12 since snapshots are fairly minor here.

The actual question
After all that nonsense above, the actual question is this; "What is Linden Labs actually DOING?"
We know nothing of what LL is doing or aiming for, however we know what we would LIKE them to aim for, namely a stable economy with a return of dwell, along with a stable version of the game from which to add new features (rather than tacking them onto what is currently a bit of a mess, like now). Basically, what LL should be aiming for is stabiity before moving any further forward. Even if that means leaving a small team to tweak and optimise and bug-fix the current version while the rest get going on a 2.0 version.
But I think one of the main things is that we would like to KNOW what is happening, currently we have no idea, and all people are seeing is the failures with no obvious hope or light at the end of the tunnel. If we had some idea of what LL is working on besides relatively inconsequential things in Preview then we could have a say in what we think about the value of upcoming features. For example, I just read that new animation system idea, while it would be awesome, I'd be much happier with a faster, less buggy game. Technical superiority is secondary at best to performance on a game like SL I think.
Enough of my ramblings, summary is;
Stability please, and tell us what's going on instead of dropping hints at things that might never happen. All we see are bugs destroying our game, and other bugs important to us being ignored to add new features we don't want instead.
What's it going to take to get LL to concentrate on bug-fixing first and foremost before moving ahead?

It's easy to write this down. I used to.

One person's fix is another person's feature though. It isn't so binary. You know the old joke, "Is it a bug or a feature?"

I don't think we can split it down the line like that. However, we can be clearer about communicating what's coming. We can be more candid about changes-in-progress. And we do need to be more proactive as the world grows about not missing "low-hanging fruit".

With a world so diverse as SL, any singular approach will fail. We have Residents willing to sacrifice stability for cutting-edge features. We have those who are absolutely adamant about FPS gains but don't think about the user interface needs of others. We have many who clash about how the UI should be advanced. (Reminder we have a Useability Expert position still open!)

Some considerations of yours are solid gold, and I have addressed them in previous posts. For example, "What is Linden Labs actually DOING?" What I would love? Getting more Linden views talking about their projects, being excited, not getting lost in the din of the forums where needless redundancy happens. I'd like to help make this happen.

We have perceptions that are different from the reality, and we should work smarter to reconcile that.

One thing I am tracking... if you do know of a current company that uses your suggestion (or a similar variant thereof) to great success... don't hesitate to let us know. These things, after all, can't just be theory.

Thank you.