The thing is, policies like this make it really hard to manage open source projects, which (a) typically do not make a lot of money, and (b) in the very long ta

The thing is, policies like this make it really hard to manage open source projects, which (a) typically do not make a lot of money, and (b) in the very long tail, are sometimes "dormant" according to this metric. And the cost goes up the more projects you have and the more services they're spread over. If they really wanted to save only on costs, surely they could have gone for the biggest repos first? E.g., politely email owners of large-but-inactive repos to consider spinning them down, and then if that fails to move the needle, then put in a policy (starting with big repos first). There's no reason for someone's 1k LOC project to get swept up in something like this. The costs for that must be trivial.