+1 to the proposal. > +1 generally, this seems to be the approach many other projects follow, so it seems reasonable. One note - the 7 day deadline feels a little too strict. I'd propose to change this to 150 days + 30 days, the total would be the same, but people can have more time to react.
This seems reasonable to me, though I will note that reopening an issue is always an option. But I probably still like 30 days. Thanks, Danny On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:50 AM Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz> wrote: > Hi XQ, > > +1 generally, this seems to be the approach many other projects follow, so > it seems reasonable. One note - the 7 day deadline feels a little too > strict. I'd propose to change this to 150 days + 30 days, the total would > be the same, but people can have more time to react. > > Thanks for this proposal, > > Jan > On 5/27/25 16:36, XQ Hu via dev wrote: > > Hi, Beam developers, > > I was reviewing the Apache Beam repository statistics on OSS Insight ( > https://ossinsight.io/analyze/apache/beam#issues) and wanted to discuss > our current issue management strategy (the previous discussion in 2020 is > https://lists.apache.org/thread/41yvgw5ymvkkzt3ws1160j58t9hbf2mt). > > According to the "Issues" overview section on the page, we currently have > approximately 7,230 total issues. While it's positive to note that in the > last 28 days, more issues were closed (74) than opened (56) , the overall > size of the backlog remains substantial. A large backlog can make it > challenging to effectively triage, prioritize, and address the most > relevant items. > > I am proposing this PR (https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/35052) and > suggest the following: > > > - Initial Staling: Issues that have seen no updates or meaningful > activity for 173 days will be automatically labeled as stale . > - Notification: When an issue is marked stale, an automated comment > will be posted: "This issue has been marked as stale due to 173 days of > inactivity. It will be closed in 1 week if no further activity occurs. If > you think that’s incorrect or this issue still needs to be addressed, > please simply write any comment. If closed, you can reopen the issue at any > time. Thank you for your contributions." . > - Auto-Closure: If, after an additional 7 days, there is still no > activity on the issue, it will be automatically closed . A comment will be > added: "This issue has been closed due to lack of activity. If you think > that is incorrect, you can reopen the issue at any time." . > > This means an issue would be closed after a total of 180 days of > inactivity. > > Rationale: > > - Focus & Efficiency: This process, now backed by an implemented > workflow, will help us systematically manage the backlog, allowing the > community to focus on active and pressing issues. > - Clarity & Consistency: Adopting these specific parameters (173 days > to stale, 7 days to close) provides a clear and consistent expectation for > issue lifecycle management. > - Community Input: The 7-day warning period after an issue is marked > stale provides a window for community members to intervene if an issue is > still relevant or requires further attention. > > This approach seems like a good balance, giving ample time (nearly 6 > months) before an issue is flagged, and then a clear warning period before > closure. > > Let me know if you have any concerns or other suggestions. Thanks. > > Best, > XQ > >
