Guidelines revision: what changed and why posts 121–143

Post #118 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

On guidelines revision: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one.

Answering the guidelines revision question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.

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.

Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.

Worth separating two things that post #121 runs together.

I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of guidelines revision and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops.

When announcements are made: major policy changes, technical changes affecting site function, planned downtime, and changes to guidelines all get announced here.

Small correction to my own earlier position on guidelines revision. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.

Taking post #126 at face value and following it one step further.

The confident answers on guidelines revision and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.

That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.

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.

That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.

I had written a reply contradicting post #129 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.

The general case is well covered; this is the awkward specific one.

Two sentences on guidelines revision and then I will stop, because the rest is speculation and the thread is better without mine.

What is documented is narrow. What is inferred from it is broad. The gap between them is where every argument here lives.

Post #131 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.

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.