Discuss Close Reasons

« first day (353 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (849 days later) »

200_success

21:40

@JoeWallis I like your analysis and proposal.

A: How should we revise the standard off-topic reasons, if we can have up to five?

I think we're mostly discussing how we should arrange the following reasons, from the close-reason meta thread: Code not working as intended Code not yet written Owner of code Pseudocode, etc. Explanation of code No code I'm of the idea of making them easier for closers to use and to have cod...

I think we should give it a fair shot. That means starting with a fresh Meta question, because this one is too messy now.

Before we do that, let's tweak this one to make it good.

StackExchange

200_success has unfrozen this room.

Joe Wallis

Thank you, I'm honestly surprised, I'll read the edit quickly.

200_success

First, I've reversed the order, so that the most durable reason comes first. That way, voters go down the list and choose the first applicable one.

Don't know and own the code: "For constructive and practical reasons" is noise.

"ownership", in quotes, is weird, so I've replaced it with "owner or maintainer" — my usual phrasing.

Lacks reviewable code: Dropped "unfortunately", since it's not really unfortunate.

Hosch250

Do you have a good replacement for "broken" yet?

If not, would "incorrect" be better?

200_success

Added "generic best practices", since that is the main rationale for the rule.

@Hosch250 I think we're going with "code that does not work as intended".

Hosch250

21:47

OK, sounds good.

Joe Wallis

I copied the the "ownership" from Robert, it reads the same, I don't really notice much of a change, just better wording.

200_success

I know, Robert's was a good start, but the exact wording has issues.

Dropped "when you amend this we will consider reopening the question", since sometimes questions are unsalvageable if they have been answered already.

Instead, I've replaced it with "please post concrete code", which is more informative of our expectations.

Joe Wallis

I think it's good, I don't dislike any of your changes

200_success

Code not working as intended: Changed "review your correctly working code for security issues, …" to "review your working code to address issues such as …"

OK. Let's sleep on it for another day or so, and then we can start with a fresh Meta post. I'll reiterate the issues that we wish to address with the rewrite.

Then we'll post four answers: the status quo, your proposal (revised), Robert's, and mine.

Joe Wallis

Sure thing, I didn't notice the removal of 'correctly', I was using that as an extra 'safe guard'? Should that be removed?

Status quo? As in the current ones?

200_success

21:54

Sure. Just for reference, and in case anyone wants to vote to maintain the status quo.

I figured "peer review your correctly working code" was redundant, since the bold summary and the next sentence cover it. What do you think?

Joe Wallis

Ok, are you sure you don't want to add Simons', rolfls or janos'?

200_success

Those are already disqualified, since they contain five reasons.

Oh, Simon's has 3. I'll include that then.

In that case, maybe I'll drop Robert's slate, so as not to offer too many similar competing alternatives.

Joe Wallis

Also removing the correctly seems ok, I just thought another possible wording of broken code may help if people didn't understand the 'not working as intended'

Hosch250

So, why can't we have five reasons?

200_success

OK, it wouldn't hurt to add one word back in.

The software allows five reasons, but Robert requires us to provide extraordinary justification to enable any more than three.

We could add one more choice to the poll: give us five separate reasons, dammit!

That could serve as justification.

Joe Wallis

22:00

I'm sure that'd go down well

Hosch250

I liked rolfl's, but Robert's are really good too.