This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
On Promotion criteria, 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.
Objections are genuinely wanted at this stage, because a bad promotion is much harder to undo than a bad reply.
The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.
I read post #121 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Second maintainers matter. A single maintainer is a single point of failure and every document here that went stale had one.
If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
Post #121 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
Worth separating two things that post #121 runs together.
Point three stops most nominations. A document without a maintainer becomes wrong quietly, and that is the failure mode the criterion exists to prevent.
That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.
On post #125 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Promotion criteria: I would want to see the raw numbers rather than the summary before agreeing. Summaries lose exactly the information that would settle this.
Picking up post #129: that is the part I would want checked first.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
On reflection I would soften that slightly.
Picking up post #128: that is the part I would want checked first.
On Promotion criteria, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
On post #130 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Two claims get bundled together under Promotion criteria 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.
The most useful review comment names a sentence and says what is wrong with it. General approval and general concern are both hard to act on.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.
The four criteria are that the question recurs, that the content is correct and sourced or labelled as community practice, that somebody will be named as maintainer with a review date, and that no unresolved substantive objection stands.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
Marking my uncertainty on Promotion criteria explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.
Building on post #139 rather than restating it.
Taking Promotion criteria seriously for a moment rather than deflecting: the honest position is that the community has observations and no controlled comparison, and those two things support very different sentences.
Answering the question post #139 raises rather than the one it answers.
The most useful review comment names a sentence and says what is wrong with it. General approval and general concern are both hard to act on.
The general answer and the answer for your case may diverge here.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Proposing that draft on reconstitution arithmetic deserves a…
|
+120 | 129 | 4.1k | 15mo |
|
Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it
Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Recording a dissent, and specifically the version of it that the…
|
+15 | 19 | 25k | 1mo |
|
About the Doc review category
Review of drafts and revisions before and after promotion. Every promotion is discussed in public. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded…
|
4 | 25k | 4mo | |
|
Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it
On the subject in the title: Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it Working notes rather than a conclusion. I was wrong about evidence digest in a thread last spring and I would…
|
+13 | 17 | 15k | 2d |
|
What happens when a maintainer goes quiet
The question in the title: What happens when a maintainer goes quiet I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Nomination for promotion into the documentation commons, with the…
|
+3 | 7 | 13k | 2.1y |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Request: export my own posts — one year on
Request: export my own posts — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A methods question rather than a substantive one, about export. Everyone quotes the same figure…
|
+61 | 70 | 14k | 4mo |
|
Request: export my own posts
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Request: export my own posts Everything below is what sits behind that. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin export down and I want to set out where I have got…
|
2 | 57k | 6mo | |
|
Requesting a translation of an existing page — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Requesting a translation of an existing page — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. Requesting a translation keeps being re-asked here and I…
|
+2 | 6 | 5.4k | 3mo |
|
A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset
A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Process question about how this site works. I have read the…
|
+89 | 98 | 31k | 11mo |
|
A promotion I argued against, and why I lost — a second dataset
A promotion I argued against, and why I lost — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a small dataset on promotion. It is mine, it is…
|
+3 | 7 | 32k | 12h |