This presumes that all opened issues are decent. It also presumes that the author of the issue responds to feedback. What I would quantify as drive-by issues include poorly written, lacking information, or providing information that results in a follow up reply from other users or maintainers with a fix or ask for more information that goes unanswered.
"library X fails with this input" is great, unless the input is wrong, the usage is wrong, or the environment is awry - and those issues are useless if the author doesn't reply to follow up replies.
Closing bugs because they don't contain enough info and the reporter is not responsive to providing the required info is commpletely fine. Closing based on inactivity alone is just rude.
> "library X fails with this input" is great, unless the input is wrong, the usage is wrong, or the environment is awry - and those issues are useless if the author doesn't reply to follow up replies.
They could still be a hint that the documentation or reported error could be clearer.
We disagree. My experience with several extremely large projects has yielded the judgement that closing tickets which are years old without activity is prudent, as is setting a reasonable time frame in which an issue is too stale.
"library X fails with this input" is great, unless the input is wrong, the usage is wrong, or the environment is awry - and those issues are useless if the author doesn't reply to follow up replies.