This repo is unmaintained!

[Spacelord09]

Is this project unmaintained? It seems like the stale workflow is obscuring that fact.

[olav-st]

I am not actively working on it, but I will accept PRs

[Spacelord09]

Then please disable the stale-issue workflow and indicate in the readme that you are looking for a new maintainer.

Thanks.

[olav-st]

I am not looking for a new maintainer. A new maintainer does no good without any contributors, and as I said I am happy to review and merge PRs if any show up.

The stale-issue workflow is useful for new contributors to see which issues are worth working on. If nobody is commenting on an issue or creating PRs then it is probably not very important.

[Spacelord09]

The stale workflow in this case does more harm than good. The assumption that “no comments means not important” is misleading, since many users are affected by issues but are not in a position to provide technical feedback. Automatically closing issues gives the impression that they are solved or irrelevant, which in practice discourages contributors instead of attracting them. A simple note in the README stating that the project is not actively maintained but that PRs are welcome would be much more transparent. Also, a new maintainer can absolutely make a difference — maintainers attract contributors by reviewing PRs, setting direction, and keeping issues organized. Without that visible role, potential contributors are more likely to walk away.

[olav-st]

I disagree. ScreenCloud is free and open-source software and is therefore reliant on users being technical and fixing their own problems ("scratching their own itch"). There is no support team and no expectation of support for non-techincal users.

Because of this, the GitHub issue tracker should primarily be used to coordinate work between contributors (crowd-sourced debugging and avoiding duplicate work). Keeping a bunch of open issues with no activity only makes it harder to find the issues that are actually being worked on.

Also, the stale workflow does not give the impression that the issues are solved or irrelevant. It even explicitly says: "If this issue is still relevant, please re-open a new issue."

[Spacelord09]

I understand your point, but I think we are looking at this from different perspectives.

For users and potential contributors, the stale bot workflow gives the impression that issues are being resolved or are not relevant anymore, while in reality they might simply be ignored. The message "please re-open a new issue" is not very reassuring for people who already invested time to describe a problem in detail. It effectively discourages further contributions.

Open issues without activity are not necessarily a bad thing — they serve as documentation of existing problems and can help newcomers to identify areas where they could contribute. Automatically closing them hides that information and makes the project look inactive rather than transparent.

A simple note in the README stating that you are not actively developing but are open to PRs would already set the right expectations and prevent confusion. That way, contributors know where the project stands and can decide whether to invest time.

[Spacelord09]

Just to be clear: for these reasons, it’s unlikely that anyone is currently working on any of the many issues.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has had no activity in the last 60 days. Please add a reply if you want to keep this issue active, otherwise it will be automatically closed after 30 days.

[Spacelord09]

Bump