Teams argue about v1 versus v2 while skipping the harder question: who promises what to whom. A version bump without a named deprecation owner, a support playbook, and a consumer notification channel is just a directory rename.
Useful versioning policies define additive change in plain language, list examples of field removals that require a major, and set a minimum notice period measured in consumer release cycles — not calendar wishful thinking.
During reviews we facilitate a short decision tree: can an old client keep working without code changes? If yes, stay on the same major. If no, schedule the bump and fund the migration, including the teams that did not ask for the change.
Treat version numbers as commitments, not labels.