This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Worth separating two things that post #59 runs together.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
I would keep promotion criteria and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.
An honest declaration on promotion criteria: I have a prior here and it is strong enough that you should weight what I say downward. Stating it rather than hiding it.
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 held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
Everything in post #63 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Where I would push back on the promotion criteria consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
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 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.
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
Picking up post #70: that is the part I would want checked first.
Where I have landed on promotion criteria, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.
On post #73 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Worth separating promotion criteria as a question about the compound from promotion criteria as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
The question underneath promotion criteria is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
Objections are genuinely wanted at this stage, because a bad promotion is much harder to undo than a bad reply.
Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.
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 note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
I had written a reply contradicting post #81 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
Post #81 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
The most useful reply I ever got about promotion criteria was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.
Since promotion criteria keeps coming up, it should probably be a maintained page rather than a recurring thread. I am happy to draft it if someone with more direct experience will review it.
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.
The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.