Currently, the text at the Issue Tracker wiki page explains that only the reporter(s) should close the issue, and everyone else should only "resolve" the issue to mark it as needing the reporters' attention. However, this is not enforced by software, and currently, anyone can close an issue. This has garnered some complaints of premature closures. Prokofy has proposed making a software-enforced rule that only the reporter can close an issue, with an automatic timeout of about 30 days from the date of resolution. (She also proposed that only the reporter can resolve, but hadn't understood what was intended by that state - WEB-247 discusses the issue of renaming "resolve" to not be so confusing.) This could be intentional, especially if something impacts a lot of people, resulting in what is effectively many reporters. I can think of a scenario where a bug is fixed for the reporter, but is not yet fixed for some other residents - for example, if a rack of servers go down, and only some are restored. One would like the other residents to then have the power to both reopen and re-close the issue. However, this situation is probably rather rare, and it is probably acceptable just for Lindens to watch the comments and re-close when appropriate.