As an open source maintainer, I feel that statement is really unfair. Yes, we do sometimes close bug reports without evidence they are fixed. But:

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

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

▲

xmprt an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

	▲	afdbcreid an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I partially agree, but even with stalebots nobody is measuring the maintainers' productivity. So when they made the choice to use stalebots, they did that because they believe that's best for the project. It's different from corporate.

▲

NetMageSCW 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why do you close the issue then?

	▲	afdbcreid an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Because I have a reason to believe it's fixed, I have many more like it and it's difficult to reproduce. Simple :)
	▲	eleumik an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Because open source is corporate now