Where I part company with post #4, and it is a narrow parting. 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.
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Trust level 3 requirements: a clarification — does this still hold?
Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on Trust level 3 requirements, because they get bundled and then argued about as one thing.
The first is descriptive: what has actually been observed, by whom, and how. The second is causal: why. I am asking about the first only.
Clarification on the announcement, because two people have now read it the same wrong way. That is a writing failure rather than a reading one, and the original has been edited with a note.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
Confirming post #2 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
I had written a reply contradicting the opening post and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Reframing Trust level 3 requirements 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.
The arithmetic in post #2 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Where the Trust level 3 requirements 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.
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.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
Where I part company with post #4, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
Narrowing post #6, because the general version has more than one answer.
A note on how Trust level 3 requirements gets discussed rather than on Trust level 3 requirements itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.
Everything in post #8 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
The rare case here is the one that costs somebody a week, though, and the common case costs everyone ten seconds. I think the trade is clearly correct.
Source for the Trust level 3 requirements figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for Trust level 3 requirements post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.
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 I would do. It may not be what is correct.
Taking post #11 at face value and following it one step further.
The useful distinction on Trust level 3 requirements is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.
Following this. I have the same question and no better information than the first post.
This follows post #15 rather than contradicting it.
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.
Post #15 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Adding the boring version of Trust level 3 requirements, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.
Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.
Adding the measurement that post #19 says would settle it.
The rare case here is the one that costs somebody a week, though, and the common case costs everyone ten seconds. I think the trade is clearly correct.
I will take the caveat as seriously as the claim, which is the point of putting it there.
Everything in post #22 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
Post #24 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
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.
Where I part company with post #22, and it is a narrow parting.
On Trust level 3 requirements the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.
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.