Documentation · Doc review

Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations

Documentation › Doc review citation check review date wiki post promoted to docs maintainership

Closed

titration_diaryTL3Regular8 Jun 2024#1

Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

Nomination for promotion into the documentation commons, with the criteria addressed one by one.

The question recurs, the answer in the topic is correct and sourced, and I am willing to be named as maintainer with a review date. That is three of the four; the fourth is whether anybody objects.

Objections genuinely wanted. A bad promotion is much harder to undo than a bad reply.

35 likes 2.1y

r.scholtenTL2Member12 Jun 2024#2

Objections are genuinely wanted at this stage, because a bad promotion is much harder to undo than a bad reply.

8 likes 2.1y

g.verhoevenTL215 Jun 2024#3

I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on promotion criteria, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.

2 likes 2.1y

ZieglerTL3Regular18 Jun 2024#4

The version of promotion criteria 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.

0 likes 2.1y

m.dumitruTL220 Jun 2024#5

Point three stops most nominations. A document without a maintainer becomes wrong quietly, and that is the failure mode the criterion exists to prevent.

26 likes 2.1y

diluent_watchTL2Member22 Jun 2024#6

Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space.

12 likes 2.1y

z.vogelTL224 Jun 2024#7

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 have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.

4 likes 2.1y

glossary_lineTL1Member26 Jun 2024 · edited#8

m.dumitru, post #5: Point three stops most nominations. A document without a maintainer becomes wrong quietly, and that is the failure mode the criterion exists to prevent. Go to post

Taking post #7 at face value and following it one step further.

If someone has run promotion criteria properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.

0 likes in reply to #5 2.1y

ca.vermeulenTL228 Jun 2024#9

titration_diary, post #1: Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Nomination for promotion into the documentation commons, with the criteria addressed one by one. The question recurs, the answer in the topic is correct and sourced, and I am willing to be named as maintainer… Go to post

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.

8 likes in reply to #1 2.1y

h.nicolaidesTL3Regular30 Jun 2024#10

glossary_line, post #8: Taking post #7 at face value and following it one step further. If someone has run promotion criteria properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet. Go to post

Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.

Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.

2 likes in reply to #8 2.1y

a.kowalczykTL2Regular2 Jul 2024#11

ca.vermeulen, post #9: 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. Go to post

Post #8 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Second maintainers matter. A single maintainer is a single point of failure and every document here that went stale had one.

24 likes in reply to #9 2.1y

m.almeidaTL24 Jul 2024#12

Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.

0 likes 2.1y

d.moreauTL2Regular6 Jul 2024#13

I have been on both sides of the promotion criteria argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.

1 like 2.1y

y.ibarraTL28 Jul 2024#14

Check the links. Promotion frequently breaks a cross-reference because the source topic now points at the document rather than the reverse.

Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.

7 likes 2.1y

d.bramleyTL3Regular10 Jul 2024#15

a.kowalczyk, post #11: Post #8 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. Second maintainers matter. A single maintainer is a single point of failure and every document here that went stale had one. Go to post

Promotion criteria: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.

33 likes in reply to #11 2y

v.kjaerTL211 Jul 2024#16

Coming back to post #14, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

A promotion that is declined should leave the topic linked from wherever the question recurs, so the work is not lost.

0 likes 2y

k.brandl_deTL3Translator · DE13 Jul 2024#17

This follows post #16 rather than contradicting it.

The thing about promotion criteria that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.

3 likes 2y

v.bruunTL215 Jul 2024#18

h.nicolaides, post #10: Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything. Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in. Go to post

Posting my promotion criteria numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer.

11 likes in reply to #10 2y

ppm_errorTL3Analytical chemist16 Jul 2024 · edited#19

I will take the caveat as seriously as the claim, which is the point of putting it there.

12 likes 2y

a.pereiraTL218 Jul 2024#20

Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.

Happy to expand any of that if it is the useful part.

26 likes 2y

a.batistaTL220 Jul 2024#21

d.moreau, post #13: I have been on both sides of the promotion criteria argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is. Go to post

Everything in post #20 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

The most useful thing anyone has posted about promotion criteria in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.

0 likes in reply to #13 2y

a.nwosuTL221 Jul 2024#22

That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.

18 likes in reply to #9 2y

r.danquahTL223 Jul 2024 · edited#23

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.

4 likes 2y

r.villalobosTL224 Jul 2024#24

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.

0 likes 2y

o.vogelTL226 Jul 2024#25

I think the promotion criteria question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.

26 likes in reply to #13 2y

m.duarteTL228 Jul 2024#26

Post #23 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Adding a null result on promotion criteria. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are.

12 likes in reply to #8 2y

n.norgaardTL229 Jul 2024#27

Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.

That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.

2 likes 2y

f.fenwickTL3Regular31 Jul 2024#28

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.

0 likes 2y

dr_bhattacharyaTL3Physician1 Aug 2024#29

A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for promotion criteria post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.

19 likes 2y

r.erdoganTL23 Aug 2024#30

z.vogel, post #7: 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 have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge. Go to post

Objections are genuinely wanted at this stage, because a bad promotion is much harder to undo than a bad reply.

8 likes in reply to #7 2y

Sponsored Sigma-Aldrich — certified reference materialsReference standards, analytical reagents and certified materials for method calibration. If you are validating a method, this is where the standard comes from.Reference standards →