On the subject in the title: Guidelines revision: what changed and why — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion.
A methods question rather than a substantive one, about Guidelines revision.
Everyone quotes the same figure and I cannot find anyone who says how it was arrived at. That is not an accusation; it usually means the derivation is somewhere obvious and I have missed it.
The practical version of Guidelines revision is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
Post #2 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
I would keep Guidelines revision and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.
Where I part company with the opening post, and it is a narrow parting.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
Announcement about the vendor documentation set. Two pages have had their review dates brought forward because the underlying records changed. The pages themselves say what changed and when, as they always have.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
Confirming post #6 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Having read the whole Guidelines revision thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
An honest declaration on Guidelines revision: I have a prior here and it is strong enough that you should weight what I say downward. Stating it rather than hiding it.
Post #6 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The edit is clearer. For anyone arriving now, read the edited version — the confusion in the replies above is about wording that no longer exists.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
I read post #8 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Trying to state the Guidelines revision position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
Worth saying publicly: stepping back cleanly and handing over is a service. Documents with an absent maintainer go wrong quietly, which is the worst way for them to go wrong.
Posted with less confidence than the sentence structure implies.
Where I would push back on the Guidelines revision consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
This follows post #11 rather than contradicting it.
Clarification on the announcement, because two people have now read it the same wrong way. That is a writing failure rather than a reading one, and the original has been edited with a note.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
When announcements are made: major policy changes, technical changes affecting site function, planned downtime, and changes to guidelines all get announced here.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
Taking post #15 at face value and following it one step further.
Supportive, with one reservation worth stating in public: the change makes a common case slightly slower in exchange for making a rare case much better. That is usually right and it is not automatically right.
Confirming post #19 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The rare case here is the one that costs somebody a week, though, and the common case costs everyone ten seconds. I think the trade is clearly correct.
The general answer and the answer for your case may diverge here.
When announcements are made: major policy changes, technical changes affecting site function, planned downtime, and changes to guidelines all get announced here.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
Where I part company with post #18, and it is a narrow parting.
Practical experience of Guidelines revision, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.
Guidelines revision: I would want to see the raw numbers rather than the summary before agreeing. Summaries lose exactly the information that would settle this.
The edit is clearer. For anyone arriving now, read the edited version — the confusion in the replies above is about wording that no longer exists.
A modest claim, modestly supported.
Building on post #24 rather than restating it.
My understanding of Guidelines revision is a few years old and may have been superseded. If it has been, I would genuinely like to know rather than keep repeating it.
Post #22 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Clarification on the announcement, because two people have now read it the same wrong way. That is a writing failure rather than a reading one, and the original has been edited with a note.
On Guidelines revision, I would rather understate and be corrected upward than overstate and be quoted. That is a house style here and it is a good one.