Hello, Over the past few months, I have looked at tickets labeled "Priority: highest" to get a feel for things. I looked at the three stalest once a fortnight using this link. https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/?sort=updated_asc&state=opened&label_name%5B%5D=P%3A%3Ahighest&first_page_size=3 I managed to find some that could be closed, some that could be deprioritized, and some that had fallen through the cracks. Overall it felt really nice. Now I've started seeing the same issues, meaning I've worked my way through the entire list. So I think all of the remainders are current and valid. Having done that, I decided I'd try looking at "Priority: high" tickets. Unfortunately the same triage strategy won't work. While "highest" says to me, "Hey, we need to fix this!", it's not clear what "high" means. I think a mature project like GHC may very well have many tickets that are important, but not important enough to halt other work. That means these tickets may just be stale and that's that. But then how might I review them? My strategy of simply looking at the 3 stalest once a fortnight won't work anymore, because it'll just be the same three each time. :) At least with "Priority: Highest" tickets, I felt justified commenting, "Hi, is this still valid?" if I had nothing else meaningful to add. That would push the ticket to the bottom of the queue. Would people mind if I do the same thing with "Priority: High" tickets? I do worry it might cause useless churn. Nonetheless, I think a slow review like this is valuable, since undoubtedly there are tickets that can be closed or reprioritized. I could also do something dull like toggle some metadata, e.g. assign and then unassign myself, which would also "refresh" the ticket and push it to the bottom of the list. Does anybody have any better ideas?