As CI Signal Lead for 1.9 I often found myself filing issues with priority/critical-urgent priority/failing-test. Having two priorities assigned to an issue seems... weird. I think the idea was to encourage folks to prioritize failing tests as the most important thing. I'm not sure how well that has worked in practice.

It would make more sense to me if we called it kind/failing-test, to separate from kind/bug or kind/flake. I could then say that kubernetes/test-infra#6095 holds true, that an issue should only ever have one priority label applied to it.

I went digging through devstats and maybe it hurts my case. It does look like priority/failing-test issues get closed a little more quickly than priority/critical-urgent issues. That said, I would argue it comes from effectively triaging failing tests into a bucket, not so much that the bucket has the word "priority" in it.

• issues age|repo:kubernetes priority/failing-test
• issues age|repo:kubernetes priority/critical-urgent
• issues age|repo:kubernetes
• issues age|repo:kubernetes kind/bug priority/failing-test
• issues age|repo:kubernetes kind/bug priority/crticial-urgent
• issues age|repo:kubernetes kind/bug

ref: trying to make github issue labels more sane kubernetes/kubernetes#57911

WDYT? @kubernetes/sig-contributor-experience-misc-use-only-as-a-last-resort