[RFC 0077] Stale Issues Amendement

rfcs/0077-stale-issues-amendment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+---
+feature: stale-issues-amendment
+start-date: 2020-10-13
+author: blaggacao
+co-authors: (to be found)
+shepherd-team: (names, to be nominated and accepted by RFC steering committee)
+shepherd-leader: (name to be appointed by RFC steering committee)
+related-issues: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/100460, https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/100462
+---
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+RFC 51 implemented the stale bot with the following motivation:
+
+> We have a large number of open issues that have accumulated over the years. Not all of them are still valid and need our attention.
+> 
+> By marking stale issues, we can more easily filter issues for ones that have at least one person interested in them.
+
+Under the interpretation of this motivation, the definition of stale was 
+settled at 180 days.
+
+This RFC modifies the motivation for marking issues as stale:
+
+_A stale issue (or PR) is an issue on which the discussion has went stale. It
+has no other semantic meaning than an aggregated indicator of individual
+preferences (to not interact on a particular issue or PR)._
+
+_Therefore, a PR goes stale after a 90 days period (vs previously 180 days)
+and an issue goes stale after a 60 days period (vs previously 180 days)._
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+Under the renewed definition of _stale_ under this PR but the currently
+applied time preiods, spectators based on their common understanding 
+are not told about  aggregate choices as a fair proxy of chances of 
+success by means of the stale label.
+
+This discourages spectators with vested interests from promoting issues,
+that are visibly exhibiting lack of interaction, and there by reduced
+chances of (prompt) "success".
+
+An issue that hasn't been interacted with for 60 days or a PR for 90 days
+and in the vas majority of cases deserve an aggregate indication of
+those individual preferences for the above reason.
+
+Honesty and transparency are better in informing an individual's action
+than preceived political correctness (judging by the discussions on RFC 51).
+
+# Detailed design
+[design]: #detailed-design
+
+- Mark PRs as stale after 90 days
+- Mark issues as stale after 60 days
+- Keep the policy of never closing either PRs or Issues.
+
+# Examples and Interactions
+[examples-and-interactions]: #examples-and-interactions
+
+It should be noted under this section, that it only takes a comment
+to un-satale an issue or PR.
+
+It should be made clear, that stale does **not** mean either of
+the following:
+
+- bad
+- unimportant
+- invalid
+- not useful
+
+Or any similar deminishing interpretations. Stale just means an aggregate
+indcator of individual's choices to not interact.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+With a renewed definition of the word _stale_ and removing an overly emotional
+meaning by virtue of this very PR, there is no reason to adversely interpret
+a bot spelling out the facts.
+
+# Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+No alternatives have been considered.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+At the time of writing, no unresolved questions apear of relevance.
+
+# Future work
+[future]: #future-work
+
+No future work is required.