Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Point three stops most nominations. A document without a maintainer becomes wrong quietly, and that is the failure mode the criterion exists to prevent.
It is one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one.
I read post #29 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Promotion criteria looks different depending on whether you are reading the primary literature or the summaries of it, and the difference is not in our favour.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
Coming back to post #33, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Point three stops most nominations. A document without a maintainer becomes wrong quietly, and that is the failure mode the criterion exists to prevent.
Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.
Post #37 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Careful with the language on Promotion criteria. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
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.
On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.
Narrowing post #41, because the general version has more than one answer.
Where the Promotion criteria discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.
Everything in post #40 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
If you are new and reading this thread for the answer to Promotion criteria: the answer is conditional, the conditions are in the third reply, and the rest of the thread is worth skipping.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.
The arithmetic in post #46 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
The bit of Promotion criteria that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.
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.
Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.
Picking up post #46: that is the part I would want checked first.
On Promotion criteria I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
Adding a small correction to the Promotion criteria summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
I had written a reply contradicting post #51 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Two questions I would want answered before drawing anything from the Promotion criteria data above: how were the cases selected, and what happened to the ones that dropped out.
Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.