Change:
The label is just causing us to leave tests unattended: I propose we stop using the label, and instead deal with flaky tests by either fixing asap them or moving them into suites as necessary. (This has the benefit that we don't have to worry about the jobs which are currently just dumping grounds for tests people don't want to care about.) cc
using seems like it's only going to be worse. folks will relabel tests, and then they'll never run anywhere, ever again...
Agreed, but we can also monitor (how?) what s exist.
We should reopen all of those issues until the tests have been moved back.
already done.
I think this is just a case of some combination of people writing "fix #blah" in a PR and that auto-closing, and people not being aware of the policy.
I've sent out to resolve this, basically reserving the label to long-running flaky tests that we don't have a short-term solution for. Happy to hear other ideas.

Discussion:
- `[Slow]`: If a test takes more than five minutes to run (by itself or in parallel with many other tests), it is labeled `[Slow]`.  This partition allows us to run almost all of our tests quickly in parallel, without waiting for the stragglers to finish. - `[Serial]`: If a test cannot be run in parallel with other tests (e.g. it takes too many resources or restarts nodes), it is labeled `[Serial]`, and should be run in serial as part of a separate suite. - `[Disruptive]`: If a test restarts components that might cause other tests to fail or break the cluster completely, it is labeled `[Disruptive]`.  Any `[Disruptive]` test is also assumed to qualify for the `[Serial]` label, but need not be labeled as both.  These tests are not run against soak clusters to avoid restarting components. <del> - `[Flaky]`: If a test is found to be flaky, it receives the `[Flaky]` label until it is fixed.  A `[Flaky]` label should be accompanied with a reference to the issue for de-flaking the test, because while a test remains labeled `[Flaky]`, it is not monitored closely in CI. `[Flaky]` tests are by default not run, unless a `focus` or `skip` argument is explicitly given. </del> <ins> - `[Flaky]`: If a test is found to be flaky and we have decided that it's too hard to fix in the short term (e.g. it's going to take a full engineer-week), it receives the `[Flaky]` label until it is fixed.  The `[Flaky]` label should be used very sparingly, and should be accompanied with a reference to the issue for de-flaking the test, because while a test remains labeled `[Flaky]`, it is not monitored closely in CI. `[Flaky]` tests are by default not run, unless a `focus` or `skip` argument is explicitly given. </ins> - `[Skipped]`: `[Skipped]` is a legacy label that we're phasing out.  If a test is marked `[Skipped]`, there should be an issue open to label it properly.  `[Skipped]` tests are by default not run, unless a `focus` or `skip` argument is explicitly given. - `[Feature:...]`: If a test has non-default requirements to run or targets some non-core functionality, and thus should not be run as part of the standard suite, it receives a `[Feature:...]` label, e.g. `[Feature:Performance]` or `[Feature:Ingress]`.  `[Feature:...]` tests are not run in our core suites, instead running in custom suites.  There are a few use-cases for `[Feature:...]` tests: - If a feature is experimental or alpha and is not enabled by default due to being incomplete or potentially subject to breaking changes, it should *not* block the merge-queue, and thus should run in some separate test suites owned by the feature owner(s).