This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Reframing promotion criteria slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.
Promotion criteria has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.
Where I part company with post #122, and it is a narrow parting.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
Picking up post #124: that is the part I would want checked first.
My understanding of promotion criteria is a few years old and may have been superseded. If it has been, I would genuinely like to know rather than keep repeating it.
An observation about promotion criteria that I cannot explain and am posting anyway, on the principle that unexplained observations are more useful public than private.
Worth separating two things that post #126 runs together.
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.
I read post #129 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
I looked this up rather than remembered it, which is the right order.
Post #133 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Not a strong opinion, just a consistent one.
Objections are genuinely wanted at this stage, because a bad promotion is much harder to undo than a bad reply.
If anyone has run this properly I would rather read that than my own guess.
Picking up post #133: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.
Coming back to post #133, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
I have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread.
Post #137 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.
Small correction to my own earlier position on promotion criteria. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
Fine by me. I had wanted a stronger conclusion and there is not one available.
Everything in post #141 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
On promotion criteria: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
The arithmetic in post #146 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Answering the promotion criteria question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version
On the subject in the title: Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A narrow question about Promotion criteria, deliberately…
|
+130 | 143 | 7.2k | 6mo |
|
A promotion I argued against, and why I lost
Posting this under the heading it deserves: A promotion I argued against, and why I lost Everything below is what sits behind that. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on promotion,…
|
+148 | 162 | 3.9k | 16mo |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Request: tag synonyms surfaced in search
On the subject in the title: Request: tag synonyms surfaced in search Working notes rather than a conclusion. A follow-up question about tag synonyms surfaced in search that I did not know to ask the first…
|
+23 | 27 | 38k | 3h |
|
Coming back to: Request: tag synonyms surfaced in search
Request: tag synonyms surfaced in search Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Tag synonyms surfaced in search — I have the observation and I do not trust my…
|
2 | 26k | 13mo | |
|
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 |
|
Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed
On the subject in the title: Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of citation sweep results is…
|
+92 | 101 | 2.9k | 2mo |
|
Request: show the solution author in the topic list
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Request: show the solution author in the topic list Everything below is what sits behind that. Process question, and I have read the guidelines before asking. I…
|
2 | 2.4k | 10mo |