RFC: Should we remove the 'good first issue' label?

Related to other discussions on low effort PRs #31679 and #32207

Should we remove the 'good first issue' label?

Note that we mention this label in the "[Issues for new contributors](https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/21355)" section of the docs. It is also mentioned briefly at the end of the "[A typical workflow for triaging issues](https://scikit-learn.org/dev/developers/bug_triaging.html#a-typical-workflow-for-triaging-issues)" section.

Reasons for:

* currently there are no open issues with this label (https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3A%22good%20first%20issue%22)
* it is rare for good first issues to occur naturally. Often it requires maintainers specifically trying to think of one and spending time writing thorough details and guidance in an issue, probably what happens when searching for issues for people to work on in sprints, and even then, during the sprint, guidance is often required.
* it often attracts *many* low quality PRs - this is possibly because it's aggregated on sites such as https://goodfirstissue.dev/. It's difficult to find examples as we often remove the label but maybe #31318 and #30352 are examples of how much interest the label often attracts.
* it may be better for a user to start work on something that they use themselves and are familiar with, or something they already have background knowledge of. This would of course vary between people, making it a difficult label to use.
   * related, as described in @betatim's [post](https://discuss.scientific-python.org/t/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-project-that-is-welcoming-to-newcomers/2127/3) on scientific-python, the type of users attracted to this label may be simply interested in getting a PR merged in a 'big' project. From Ralf: 'Promising new contributors are almost always motivated by a problem/topic, not by “getting on the scoreboard”'  
* for reference NumPy does not have a good first issue label (https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/21355) they do have a 'sprintable' label

This is just a request for comment, I understand if we decide to keep this label in the end.

cc @scikit-learn/core-devs

COMMENT:
> I am fine with not using the "good first issue" label and update the doc about "new issues for contributors". Not sure whether this is really worth deleting the label.

Fair point. If we are using this label judiciously, which it seems like we are at the moment, and people know that if you add this label you should take responsibility for the wave of contributors responding, then a doc update is probably all that is needed.

I did see https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/issues/32315 and that seemed to go well, though I do note that it was intended for a sprint, and was of the 'meta-issue' type.

> my feeling is that people (or maybe bots, who knows 😅) jump on seemingly random issues with "can I work on it, assign this to me" which I tend to be more and more grumpy about if I am being honest

SAME. And honestly it makes me think twice when I open 'easy' seeming issues. Even when I write in the issue that "no action is required for this issue at the moment" (as you've seen in #32561) - you still get people constantly responding.

This may be the real problem to address here.

Labels: RFC