Matt <matt@excalamus.com> writes:

>  >...or did you not provided arguments /why/ the
>  > section should be moved? I need to understand what kind of improvement
>  > it would provide to the manual.
>
> I didn't know that's what you were looking for.  When I said, "I had responded in favor..." it was in response to your prior message which said,

Let me clarify.
I am personally neutral about where the concept of checkboxes is
introduced. Either way is generally possible.

However, moving "Checkboxes" section will require some work. We will
need to make sure that the overall flow of the manual is _improved_.
The question is how to judge "improved".

From my point of view, the manual will be improved by the proposed
change if (a) we can see clear logical argument why the proposed
rearrangement is superior; or/and (b) *a number* of Org users /feel/ that
the rearrangement will improve thins.

Your response is in favor, but you did not appear to present logical
arguments. So, I classify your response as if you /feel/ that the
rearrangement will be better. Such response of a single person is not
very convincing. I'd only see rearrangement justified if many users are
in favor.

Another question is when there is a clear logical argument. Such
argument would not require multiple users to agree as it would stand by
its own.

>> No comments arrived within one month.
>
> This is incorrect albeit understandable.  I had responded and, therefore, there were not "no comments."  However, it looks like I responded in the wrong thread! ("Re: [PATCH] doc/org-manual.org: Checkboxes, add checkbox states examples")  That's my bad!

I indeed missed your comment when writing this particular sentence.

> Regarding reasoning, I'm in favor of the move for the reasons Sławomir gave:
>
>> Because checkbox can only exist in a plain list, as a plain list feature.
>> So the section should be under 'Plain Lists' heading not under 'TODO Items'.
>
> The issue is checkbox usage is split between different sections of the manual.
>
> You had responded to this by saying,
>
>> Both arrangements are logical. Checkboxes are useful as a complement to
>> TODO items. And they are also indeed a plain list feature.
>
> It seems we're all agreed the proposed arrangement is logical and that the issue is valid.  I don't think it needs extra justification.

Yes, the proposed arrangement is logical. So is the existing
arrangement. The problem is that I do not see why the proposed
arrangement is *better*.

> Conceding this point, which we all appear to, the issue becomes which arrangement we should use?
>
> Originally, we were reluctant to move the Checkboxes section only because Carston had moved it previously.  Unfortunately, we don't know *why* Carston moved it.  This isn't a very contestable justification.

I agree.

--
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>