The key point for me is the fact that you're allowing your developers to actually fix the issues. Most developers I know love improving old code, even if the end-users will never notice.
Personally I don't mind having to deal with the technical debt, but I absolutely detest being forced into technical debit. This is especially true if I have not yet been allowed to deal with what ever debt that already exists in a given system.
The worst thing to hear in a meeting with manager or project-leads is "We'll deal with 'that' issue after launch" or "Yeah, we need to hit the deadline, so let's just get this thing working, and deal with the fallout later". Dealing with problems retroactively is always going to be more expensive and some problems simply aren't fixable after a product launch. If you're going into product with known bugs or defects, at least let the technical people choose which bugs.
Personally I don't mind having to deal with the technical debt, but I absolutely detest being forced into technical debit. This is especially true if I have not yet been allowed to deal with what ever debt that already exists in a given system.
The worst thing to hear in a meeting with manager or project-leads is "We'll deal with 'that' issue after launch" or "Yeah, we need to hit the deadline, so let's just get this thing working, and deal with the fallout later". Dealing with problems retroactively is always going to be more expensive and some problems simply aren't fixable after a product launch. If you're going into product with known bugs or defects, at least let the technical people choose which bugs.