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
