this is actually a good example of how a more detailed issue will have a higher chance to be addressed. I don't know what information that's your previous report is lacking, but the video certainly give more information that the maintainer can pinpoint the cause and act on it. The ability to pinpoint the cause from the report is a godsent for maintainers, it drastically reduce the time to investigate the cause, thus able to act immediately.

Some of the information in this can may be:

* how "slow" exactly the process is related with normal behavior. If it's just said "slow" on previous report, it's easy to be dismissed

* the dispenser's behavior, such as if the water flow is consistently low volume or clogged intermittently, or if the dispenser is struggling to fetch from water source, etc

Wait, isn’t software engineering a solved problem?

All my homies hate stalebot

What about OSS weekend ?

It's not about expectation of work (well, there's some entitled people sure.)

It's about throwing away the effort the reporter put into filing the issue. Stale bots disincentivise good quality issues, makes them less discoverable, and creates the burden of having to collate discussion across N previously raised issues about the same thing.

Bug reports and FRs are also a form of work. They might have a selfish motive, but they're still raised with the intention of enriching the software in some way.

IMO closing issues via stale bot is fine, the problem is locking issues so that no further conversation is allowed on the issue. Multiple times, I've encountered multi-year old issues (which is usually not fixed due to the fix not being simple or compatible with the current architecture). There's usually a good amount of conversation between users offering workarounds (and those workarounds updated for newer versions) - till stale bot locks the issue.

> We owe you nothing! And the fact that people still expect maintainers to work for them is really sad, IMHO.

Users also don't owe you anything either. Auto-closing reports without even looking at them is like asking for donations only to throw 90% of what you get straight into the trash. Not cool. If you don't want bug reports, state that up front or at least leave bugs open for other users to see and talk about. Otherwise, users are free to warn others to stay away from you and your projects.

And that's before getting into more complex issues like what responsibility you have if you take on maintenance of existing software and end up breaking something what was working perfectly for some users.

> Unlike corporate workers, nobody is measuring our productivity therefore we have no incentive to close issues if we believe they are unfixed.

There are plenty incentives, e.g. pride.

> That means that when we close the issue, we believe it has a high chance of being fixed, and also we weigh the cost of having many maybe-fixed open issues against maybe closing a standing issue, and (try to) choose what's best for the project.

That's fine, but bots that auto-close issues unless the reporter dances for them is the opposite of that.

> That means that when we close the issue, we believe it has a high chance of being fixed

I agree with this iff it's being done manually after reading the issue. stalebot is indiscriminate and as far as "owing" the user, that's fair, but I'd assume that the person reporting the bug is also doing you a favor by helping you make things more stable and contributing to your repo/tool's community.

Why do you close the issue then?