Comment by altmanaltman
13 hours ago
But how is it any different from keeping them open?
Like if they are going to sort through all the issues eventually (like they claim), why not just close the ones that are not worthy when they get to them instead of closing all by default?
Is it just so that the project doesnt have open issues on its github page? But they are open issues in reality because the maintainer will eventually go through them?
Nothing is "unreasonable" in the sense that an open source project should have the right to do what it wants with its rules but its definitely a weird stance.
They address the decision at the end of those contribution guidelines linked above, specifically:
It is a guardrail against burnout and tracker spam
Its based on their implied perspective that the majority of submissions don't follow those guidelines which helps determine their quality threshold.
https://github.com/badlogic/pi-mono/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.m...
> But how is it any different from keeping them open?
If all open issues are actionable items, that makes expected workload a lot easier to handle.
If most open issues are actually in "needs triage / needs review" state, you lose the signal from the noise.
The issue tracker for a project exists primarily as a tool for maintainers, not for outsiders. Yes, the maintainers could change their workflow to create a new view that only shows triaged tickets.
Or, they could ensure the default 'open' view serves their needs.
Somehow going through closed issues just to reopen them sounds like more effort than just using the built in label system which is made for this purpose, but maybe that's just me.
I can either change my daily workflow to accommodate the noisy herd, or I can change the noisy herd to accommodate my daily workflow.