On the subject in the title: Maintainer handover: how it works Working notes rather than a conclusion.
I would like to disagree carefully with the settled view on maintainer handover, and I would like to be argued out of it if the disagreement is bad.
The disagreement is about one step, not about the conclusion. If the step holds I withdraw it entirely.
Answering the question the opening post raises rather than the one it answers.
Maintainer handovers: if a page's maintainer is inactive and needs a new one, discussing that here can facilitate the transition.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
Not a strong opinion, just a consistent one.
Adding the measurement that post #2 says would settle it.
Offering a way to settle maintainer handover rather than another opinion about it. Two measurements, taken the same way, a fortnight apart. If the difference is within the noise, the question was not answerable at this precision.
Post #4 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
I would call that likely rather than established.
Helpful, and easy to find again, which is half of what a good reply is.
On post #8 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Practical experience of maintainer handover, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.
The reason maintainer handover is hard to answer is that the obvious measurement and the relevant quantity are not the same thing, and substituting one for the other is silent.
Worth separating two things that post #11 runs together.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
This follows post #15 rather than contradicting it.
What I would check first on maintainer handover is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
Authority: if you think a page needs input from someone with specific expertise, suggesting that person helps the maintainer recruit contributors.
If anyone has run this properly I would rather read that than my own guess.
Careful with that. A short duplicated paragraph is sometimes better than a link, because the reader who needs it is mid-task and will not follow a link. The test is whether it can drift out of step.
Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.
On maintainer handover, 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.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Everything in post #18 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Cross-referencing: if two pages should reference each other but do not, suggesting the cross-reference helps the maintainer see the connection.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
Maintenance note. This document is due for review and the maintainer has asked for a second reader before the date rather than after it. If you use this page regularly, this is the moment your objection is cheapest to act on.
The failure mode on maintainer handover is boring rather than dramatic. It is almost always the step everyone assumes was done correctly because it is too simple to get wrong.
Post #24 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
That matches how I use it. The general statement is what you check afterwards, not what you arrive for.
Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward.
The version of maintainer handover that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.
Worth separating two things that post #26 runs together.
Review dates: each maintained page has a review date (the date by which it should be checked). If a page is past its review date, flagging it here alerts the maintainer.
Second-hand, so weight it accordingly.
Reporting rather than recommending, on maintainer handover. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.