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.