What a stacking policy is for, and where an operator would choose one #127

New Issue

2026-09-21T07:18:37Z

cgalo5758 commented

2026-09-21 07:18:37 +00:00

The question

Rule authoring now accepts one stacking policy, additive, and the selector left the rule form because operators could not tell what a stacking policy was. Mixing policies on one resource key (the name of the thing being counted, such as sites) made an organization's limit depend on the order in which it bought things. Before any other policy comes back: what are the policies for, what does each one offer a deployment, and is a per-rule choice in the capability-set form the right home for the concept at all?

What depends on the answer

Whether additive-only stays; how several rules covering one resource key combine; and the rows that still carry a policy the form no longer offers, for which the computation contributes nothing at all today.

Options known so far

Additive only, permanently, with the other policies removed from the schema.
A defined tie-breaker at computation time plus a warning while authoring, both sketched and deliberately not built.
The choice moves up a level, to the set, the product or the pool, rather than sitting on each rule.

Decided when

A scenarios document shows with concrete examples when an operator would want each policy, and the entitlements model page states the combination rule for one resource key.

Migrated from status/issues.md at b7a0e15

## The question Rule authoring now accepts one stacking policy, additive, and the selector left the rule form because operators could not tell what a stacking policy was. Mixing policies on one resource key (the name of the thing being counted, such as sites) made an organization's limit depend on the order in which it bought things. Before any other policy comes back: what are the policies for, what does each one offer a deployment, and is a per-rule choice in the capability-set form the right home for the concept at all? ## What depends on the answer Whether additive-only stays; how several rules covering one resource key combine; and the rows that still carry a policy the form no longer offers, for which the computation contributes nothing at all today. ## Options known so far - Additive only, permanently, with the other policies removed from the schema. - A defined tie-breaker at computation time plus a warning while authoring, both sketched and deliberately not built. - The choice moves up a level, to the set, the product or the pool, rather than sitting on each rule. ## Decided when A scenarios document shows with concrete examples when an operator would want each policy, and the entitlements model page states the combination rule for one resource key. Migrated from status/issues.md at b7a0e15

cgalo5758 added the

kind

design

area/entitlements area/operator-ui labels 2026-09-21 07:18:37 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: wiki-cafe/member-console#127