The stale bot will unhelpfully ask if "this is still an issue" or if something is being waited on for a pull request. You take the time out to reply, so that stale bot keeps the issue open. Repeat this meaningless back and forth, for months as the maintainers ignore the issue or pull request. Eventually lose the will to continue and let the bot close the issue or pull request.
Net outcome: A potential contribution or solution lost.
Stale bot only exists for aesthetic reasons, to keep issue lists clean and to close issues that maintainers don't want to deal with directly by abstracting away the interaction.
More maintainers should understand that it's OK to just ignore an issue but leave it open.
If it's configured with a short timeout and with preventing further comments, I totally agree. That's rally annoying. But maybe there are circumstances where it's actually useful.
If the maintainer is using the issue tracker to prioritize development, they should feel fine about closing issues, especially when those issues are underspecified, ignore the project's contribution guidelines, or are otherwise incomplete.
> That's fine, it's quite possible - even likely - that someone else experiencing the same problem will find the issue and be able to add more context.
That's not my experience with issue trackers. It's far more likely that underspecified and otherwise problematic issues accumulate until the issue tracker becomes borderline useless.
The issue is still there if it is closed, including any contributed but unapplied patches.
The reason for this is that it allows others to chime in and add to the issue, and for users to discuss it among themselves and even find solutions and workarounds. I can't say how many times I've had an issue with some open source project and I find related thread in the github issues. And often the solutions or workarounds are suggested by community members, not the maintainers. But I find it soooo frustrating when the issue has been closed by a "stale bot" because it hasn't been active for 30 days.
This is the spirit of open source, IMO. The creator shares their work with the world, with no commitment or obligation, and the world makes of it what they can. Maybe the maintainer volunteers to help people troubleshoot their issues, or maybe the maintainer is too busy. That's ok. Let the issue sit there, and maybe another kind soul will happen across the issue and answer the question. There isn't enough info to reproduce? That's fine, it's quite possible - even likely - that someone else experiencing the same problem will find the issue and be able to add more context.