Anecdotal evidence here, but one thing I've found interesting as a Clojure(Script) developer is how projects with one commit in the past year are considered act

Anecdotal evidence here, but one thing I've found interesting as a Clojure(Script) developer is how projects with one commit in the past year are considered active by most of us, whereas in the JavaScript and Python world, it seems that a few months without a commit makes people start asking if the project is abandoned. On the flip side, one thing I dislike a lot about the Clojure community is when people say "sometimes software is complete and there is nothing else to do" as an excuse to tolerate libraries that have gone unmaintained for years. Again, anecdotal evidence, but half the time I hear "the software is complete", I end up finding a bug in said software. Lastly, this paragraph summarizes a bigger problem with consumer behavior in open source: The best-case scenario for asking if an open source project is dead is that you annoy the maintainers and delay development. The worst-case scenario is that you give the maintainers an opportunity to reconsider if continuing to work on the open source project is worth it. People seem to forget that the vast majority of open source projects are thanklessly maintained and it is annoying having to deal with e.g. people who blatantly ignore instructions in your README, file an issue resulting from said negligence, then open a pull request to "fix" this problem that can be avoided by simply following instructions in the README. (I have had this happen in a few projects I maintain). One of my friends calls this style of PRs "drive-by PRs", and I wouldn't be surprised if most of the PRs in the author's project are just that. I want to say the author slightly alludes to this situation when stating ... accepting a misguided PR will create technical debt and take even more effort to address.