Grease Monkee wrote:
Bryan Derksen If stable versions turns out to be a disaster for some reason it should
be perfectly straightforward to just turn it off again.
from User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles: Any changes to the software must be gradual and reversible. Great minds think alike :)
Stable versions _is_ reversible. Much more reversible than something like categories, which were implemented without much thought being given to their ultimate usage. If categories had been turned off again it would have left a bajillion useless red [[category:]] links everywhere.
Stable versions doesn't have to do anything visible if the default is for people to see the most recent version rather than the one marked stable. Enable it, let people noodle around figuring out the procedures for what to mark, and if after a while the resulting version marking looks good maybe then make it the default anon view. IMO much better as a 'test' than page protection and editable subpages, which sounds rather awkward as far as usability and GFDL compliance go.
There is abundant consensus to implement 'stable versions', but not much of a definition of what exactly a 'stable version' is. I think there is a real opportunity here for the leadership to run a few trials and try a few things.
This might be part of the problem, then, since I haven't seen much in the way of leadership on this issue beyond some general statements of principle. Someone needs to actually throw the switch.