Today I reviewed a re-open request for a question that was posted in 2015 and put on hold a year later in 2016. My question doesn't come from the reopen request, but from the hold placed a year after the question had been asked and answered by a fair number of people.
Only a few days ago I user and I were discussing the point of voting to close a question a week after the fact when the question and its answers had enjoyed thousands of views, hundreds of votes, and an answer selected. It seemed to me petty to put a question on hold over a mere technicality after it had been voted (from a certain point of view) relevant by the public.
Therefore, I wonder:
A. Can we/Should we put a "statute of limitations" on questions such that they cannot be closed after the statute has expired? Putting a question on hold a year after it was posted is, frankly, absurd. It simply highlights what appears to be the inefficiency of reviewers (no offense intended).
B. Can we/Should we put a modifier on the number of close votes needed to close a question based on the aggragate votes it's received (both positive and negative). For example, for every +50 aggragate votes, one additional close vote is required to close it (thus putting the burden on reviewers to act in a timely fashion if there really is an issue that makes the question worth closing). Similarly, for every -10 aggragate votes (remember, the sum of all votes, answers + question) one less vote is required to close the question.
Note that I'm strongly in favor of the statute of limitations. Honestly, if reviewers can't close a question in even a week's time, we're simply not doing our jobs.
I'm moderately in favor of the vote count modification as it's intended purpose is to give "the people" some power over the voting process. To whit... closing highly popular questions simply makes reviewers look petty, so it should require a larger concensus.