Disagree with something
The point of publishing the tree is that you can argue with a specific piece of it
Three kinds of disagreement move the project: a node that is missing, a criterion that would not settle the question, and a number that is too high or too low. Each one is welcome, and each one leaves a trace.
How to disagree
Critique goes through issues in the public repository, because issues are durable and quotable, and folding one into the tree is a commit that can cite it. Every node page has a link that opens an issue about that node with its id already filled in. Or start from one of these:
A good disagreement says which node (the id from its page), what you would change, and why. For a missing node, the most useful thing you can give is the resolution criterion: the observable event that would count as it having happened, stated so that two people reading it would agree whether it has. A node without one is not a node, and cannot be added.
What happens to it
- John rules on it. Some critiques change the tree; some are answered and left as they are. Either way the issue records the ruling.
- A change to the tree lands as a commit that cites the issue, with a dated line in the changelog (the story so far).
- A moved probability gets a revision entry on the node, with the old number, the new one, the date, and the reason, so the node's own page shows how it has moved.
- Critique that arrives between reviews is folded in before the next annual review each January, when every node is re-estimated and the numbers are re-run.
The issue templates that shape these forms arrive at website step 24. Until then a plain issue with the node id and your reasoning is exactly enough. The repository is at github.com/jfredson/belt-equation.