Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations

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.

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.

Two people in this thread mean different things by promotion criteria and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.

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

Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.

Adding the measurement that post #74 says would settle it.

I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of promotion criteria and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops.

Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.

Practical experience of promotion criteria, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.

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.

This follows post #128 rather than contradicting 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.

That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.