This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
This follows post #90 rather than contradicting it.
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.
Two claims get bundled together under guidelines revision and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for guidelines revision post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.
Coming back to post #92, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
Source for the guidelines revision figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
I disagree with the framing of guidelines revision above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
One question about the transition rather than the policy: what happens to topics that are in flight when it takes effect? The announcement is clear about posts and silent about drafts.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
Post #96 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Guidelines revision is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for.
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.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
Post #102 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Reading the changed pages: the diff is smaller than the announcement implies, which is reassuring rather than disappointing. A large change to a documentation page usually means the previous version was wrong.
Narrowing post #105, because the general version has more than one answer.
Adding a small correction to the guidelines revision summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
What I want from this guidelines revision thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Taking post #108 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
Post #106 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
What I would check first on guidelines revision is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
Counterpoint on guidelines revision, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.
Post #113 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Since guidelines revision keeps coming up, it should probably be a maintained page rather than a recurring thread. I am happy to draft it if someone with more direct experience will review it.
I read the earlier replies on guidelines revision twice before writing this, because I had assumed the opposite and wanted to be sure I was disagreeing with what was said rather than what I expected.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
Confirming post #117 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Reporting rather than recommending, on guidelines revision. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.
On post #117 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
Appreciated. The plain phrasing does more work here than a longer post would.