This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #30 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Agreed on promotion criteria, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.
Coming back to post #28, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
A methods point on promotion criteria rather than a substantive one: if the comparison is not like for like, the difference you are measuring is the difference in method.
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 kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
A promotion that is declined should leave the topic linked from wherever the question recurs, so the work is not lost.
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.
The arithmetic in post #41 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
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.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
Post #41 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Adding what did not work for me on promotion criteria, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information.
Second maintainers matter. A single maintainer is a single point of failure and every document here that went stale had one.
The claim about promotion criteria upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes".
Where I part company with post #45, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
Post #45 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Point three stops most nominations. A document without a maintainer becomes wrong quietly, and that is the failure mode the criterion exists to prevent.
I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.
Everything in post #45 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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 this at better than even and not much better.
The arithmetic in post #48 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Something worth flagging about promotion criteria: the strongest-sounding claims in this thread are the ones with no source attached, which is the usual pattern and not a coincidence.
That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to.
Second-hand on promotion criteria, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.
I had written a reply contradicting post #54 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
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.