Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
On post #58 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
My position on Promotion criteria is current rather than settled. I have revised it once already and I expect to again, so treat it accordingly.
A note on how Promotion criteria gets discussed rather than on Promotion criteria itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.
Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.
Post #62 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
I read the earlier replies on Promotion criteria 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.
Checked the Promotion criteria claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
The arithmetic in post #67 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
Check the links. Promotion frequently breaks a cross-reference because the source topic now points at the document rather than the reverse.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
I checked the source rather than the summary, and they differ.
The strongest argument against my own position on Promotion criteria, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.
That is consistent with mine, for whatever one more account is worth.
Post #73 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Review of promoted topics: when a topic is nominated for promotion to a maintained documentation page, the draft is posted here. Community review happens before promotion. Objections are welcome.
A note on scope: what I am saying about Promotion criteria applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.
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.
I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
I read post #77 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.
Where I would push back on the Promotion criteria consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
The arithmetic in post #82 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Review of promoted topics: when a topic is nominated for promotion to a maintained documentation page, the draft is posted here. Community review happens before promotion. Objections are welcome.
Answering the question post #80 raises rather than the one it answers.
Point three stops most nominations. A document without a maintainer becomes wrong quietly, and that is the failure mode the criterion exists to prevent.
Objections are genuinely wanted at this stage, because a bad promotion is much harder to undo than a bad reply.
I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.
That is a cleaner way of putting what I was circling around.
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.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.