Sounds good. Just updated the PR to use 150 days + 30 days. On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:57 AM Danny McCormick via dev < dev@beam.apache.org> wrote:
> +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 >> >>
