Define process for issues addressed in Moonwalk

[handrews]

There are many issues like #2026 which look as if they are being ignored, but they are actually being addressed in Moonwalk. In most cases, they cannot be addressed prior to Moonwalk due to semantic versioning. We should decide how to handle the two various regarding these:

• already addressed by the Moonwalk proposal / discussions
• not yet addressed, but could still be
• either of the above, but could possibly also be addressed by a 3.2

Ideas for handling these include:

• move the issue to the Moonwalk repo
• link to the Moonwalk proposal or relevant discussion and close the issue
• tag the issue with "Moonwalk (4.0)" or similar

The last option is the most useful for the ones that could also be in 3.2. The other two feel like they would bring a lot more clarity to anything that can only be done in Moonwalk (and also help reduce our backlog)

[handrews]

As a starting point, I've created a "Moved to Moonwalk" label to apply to issues closed in favor of the Moonwalk proposal, or existing discussions on that repo. It can also be used on candidates for such closure.

I'm now trying this out to see how it works and if people complain about it :-)

[handrews]

The "Moved to Moonwalk" label seems to be working just fine. Having done a lot of issue-labeling in this repo, I don't really feel the need for additional process around this. We can open new issues if specific things come up.