[bgnm2000]

> Why do you have a giant list of potentially stale bugs?

Most places I've worked have a bug log? Priorities balance between new feature development and fixing bugs / tech debt. If a bug isn't high priority, or the feature it was about has been changed or removed, the bug might now be stale - but still exists in a list somewhere.

> The policy described in the linked-to article is roughly equivalent to saying that every bug/issue must be passed to someone, who is in charge of that issue, including closing them.

It's the opposite, it's saying that if the bug / issue isn't easy enough to be solved right then, it needs to be reported again later, or added to the official prioritized road map.

> What happens if the stakeholder's sanity runs out first?

This is a good question :)

[eesmith]

I think my earlier rhetorical question came across as one of inquiry.

Most place have a bug log. Some of the OSS projects I'm involved with have bugs I've submitted over a decade old.

My comment was meant to lead in to how a centralized bug system is not the issue - it's one of process. If a bug comes in, and either people accept a bug or close it right away, then it's the same as having a personal work list.

Except that the failure modes, like when people suddenly must be on leave for a month, are less severe.

(With the proviso that some people use personal work lists with a different interface than the centralized system might offer.)