This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Feedback to announcements: if you have feedback on an announced change (not a question, but your position) post it in the Meta category rather than here.
Where I part company with post #30, and it is a narrow parting.
Practical question on the rollout: will it be visible that a topic was created before or after the change? Six months from now nobody will remember the date.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
Adding the measurement that post #32 says would settle it.
Announcement, with the reasoning rather than just the change. The behaviour described takes effect at the start of next month, it affects posting rather than reading, and nothing already posted changes. Objections belong in Meta and will be answered there.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
The edit is clearer. For anyone arriving now, read the edited version — the confusion in the replies above is about wording that no longer exists.
That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to.
On post #37 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Noting appreciation rather than asking anything. Several years of unpaid work on something with no leaderboard and a public log of your mistakes is a peculiar thing to volunteer for.
I have separated what I observed from what I concluded, which does not always happen.
Where the Moderation log format change discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.
Narrowing post #40, because the general version has more than one answer.
Implementation timeline: announcements include when a change takes effect. Marking the date helps you know whether the change is already in effect.
I have no interest in any supplier named above.
The moderation log will carry the announcement entry, so the date is recoverable. It will not be visible on the topic itself, which is probably the right level of clutter.
I read post #43 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
The bit of Moderation log format change that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.
Post #43 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
One question about the transition rather than the policy: what happens to topics that are in flight when it takes effect? The announcement is clear about posts and silent about drafts.
Following up on the announcement above with the part people usually ask about first: no existing topic is affected, no existing post is edited, and nothing is removed. The change applies from the date forward only.
Reporting the observation and leaving the explanation open deliberately.
Reading this as a member rather than staff: the change is sensible and the explanation is better than the change. Publishing the failure mode that prompted it is what makes it possible to argue with.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
Post #47 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Supportive, with one reservation worth stating in public: the change makes a common case slightly slower in exchange for making a rare case much better. That is usually right and it is not automatically right.
Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long.
Post #53 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Worth saying publicly: stepping back cleanly and handing over is a service. Documents with an absent maintainer go wrong quietly, which is the worst way for them to go wrong.
That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close.
I read post #52 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
I would keep Moderation log format change 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.
Reading the changed pages: the diff is smaller than the announcement implies, which is reassuring rather than disappointing. A large change to a documentation page usually means the previous version was wrong.
I would put the burden of proof on the interesting explanation, not the dull one.
Practical question on the rollout: will it be visible that a topic was created before or after the change? Six months from now nobody will remember the date.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
Nothing to add on the substance. Thank you for taking the question at face value.
Noting appreciation rather than asking anything. Several years of unpaid work on something with no leaderboard and a public log of your mistakes is a peculiar thing to volunteer for.