Timeline for Why has the Fishing Line proposal been closed after being open for a mere 4 hours?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2, 2012 at 21:53 | comment | added | S.Robins | I'll end my rant ;-), but your two links about Factionalism and Merging really support my case. Programming is a broad category with many specialty areas, just like Fishing is. SO and Programmers could be merged into "Computing", but that wouldn't be useful as computing is too broad to satisfy the community. The X vs Y rules don't really deal with creating umbrella categories, like Computing, or Great Outdoors. SE & Area51 aren't so brittle that they won't cope with ideas that you may not personally like. It was designed to be flexible. Why not be the same, wait a while, then we'll see? | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 21:51 | comment | added | Robert Cartaino | We don't create sites that will completely duplicate the content of another. Read the links I posted above. We close (for example) ".NET Enthusiasts" proposals all the time (dupe of Stack Overflow). That's not abuse of power; that's just basic policy based on the hard-earned experiences of how we do things. "If your area of expertise doesn't already have a Stack Exchange site, propose it!" -- Area 51 FAQ. Nothing you've said addresses why fishing isn't completely covered by the just-launched Great Outdoors site, so I'll just stop repeating myself now. | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 21:40 | comment | added | S.Robins | Might as well create an "EVERYTHING" proposal, and get ALL sites merged into one. That idea is only slightly less ridiculous than preventing people from the benefit of at least trying to do something useful for the community. You're promoting the idea of creating a site that takes in every topic you think might fit the category, and disallowing anything to exist on its own merits. It's dreadful. The Great Outdoors conceptually should never have been created. Better to create narrower subject areas, like Hiking & Camping, or Surviving in the Wild, or whatever might otherwise fit. | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 21:34 | comment | added | S.Robins | I also find it sad that you've taken an extreme position, and I don't feel you've attempted to address any of the points that I have raised in my question. I even quoted you as saying that it's allowed to reintroduce proposals, and that they will get closed down if no effort is made to promote them. How can you justify closing a topic after 4 hours if that is the case? I haven't been afforded the courtesy to at least TRY to promote the site, and you seem to have gone back on your statement completely. Why the need to wait on factionalism to create a new site? | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 21:26 | comment | added | S.Robins | Further, you claim it's too late. Why? it's not a question of whether I've tried to post questions elsewhere. It's being closed down at a whim by a couple of people disallowing the effort to get the site up and running. Saying "we cannot let users pour a lot of effort" is a terrible position. It's not your effort, so why should you care? If the site never gets the backing of the community, why should it bother you if the proposal ends up closing later? What gives 3 individuals the right to act like they represent the entire community? It seems an abuse of power unworthy of SE members. | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 21:17 | comment | added | S.Robins | I think your "off topic" comment stretches the point a bit. I'm not saying that a question relating to fishing would necessarily be off topic per-se, yet the great outdoors is too broad a category. You could claim that any activity that can be conducted outdoors is covered by the site, and need never open another. This apparent policy to instantly close a proposal without letting it run its course effectively disallows any more subject areas being created unless some sort of approval from Great Outdoors becomes evident. A bad policy, and not in keeping with SE's basic reason for being. | |
| Feb 2, 2012 at 19:42 | history | edited | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 56 characters in body
|
| Feb 2, 2012 at 19:32 | history | answered | Robert Cartaino | CC BY-SA 3.0 |