Trust level 3 requirements: a clarification — does this still hold? posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
I had written a reply contradicting post #58 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
Questions welcomed: if an announcement is unclear, asking for clarification is welcome. Staff will explain their reasoning.
On reflection I would soften that slightly.
Trust level 3 requirements: I would want to see the raw numbers rather than the summary before agreeing. Summaries lose exactly the information that would settle this.
Post #64 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The claim about Trust level 3 requirements 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 #62, and it is a narrow parting.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
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.
Building on post #68 rather than restating it.
The documentation on Trust level 3 requirements is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.
Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.
Practical experience of Trust level 3 requirements, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.
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 #69, and it is a narrow parting.
A definition problem is doing most of the work in this Trust level 3 requirements discussion. Once the term is pinned down I suspect the disagreement mostly goes away and what is left is small.
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.
Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on Trust level 3 requirements. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
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 would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
Trust level 3 requirements was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
On post #77 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Whatever the answer on Trust level 3 requirements turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Picking up post #77: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
On Trust level 3 requirements, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
Taking post #82 at face value and following it one step further.
Two claims get bundled together under Trust level 3 requirements and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
Post #82 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
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.
Worth separating two things that post #84 runs together.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about Trust level 3 requirements in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
Confirming post #86 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
What I would tell a new member reading about Trust level 3 requirements for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.