Hmm, IIRC this was one case that *really happened*, and I was trying to catch the flavor of our IRC discussion at the time - my memory is that we were willing to accept such bugs as blockers, but we'd maybe be more likely to waive them for only affecting a small amount of users or being workaroundable or something like that.
If the explanation sounds like this, I'm actually very OK with that :) I'd probably avoid saying "less important", because then it sounds like an advice to waive everything. I think it's equally important, it just has different use cases. Maybe we could say something like "a slightly different standard of judgement may be applied to conditional violations in live environments, as the use cases of live systems and installed systems are not the same". For example, if shutdown didn't work properly and on some systems actually caused restart, that could be seen as a lesser problem on Lives.
OK, I've added another sentence to the footnote to try and clarify this some more. Good to go now?
Thanks, good to go.