Timeline for Should Server Fault be removed from Stack Overflow's migration list?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2012 at 16:27 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | None of the proposed fixes have been accepted or implemented. Note how far back some of those go. It's rather unfortunate that all of this "discussion" is scattered over dozens of pages with oodles of tangential dialog, but it's the way the site works. I suppose someone could collect it all into a single Question with a few huge answers, but I doubt anyone is willing to put the time into that. See also: meta.stackexchange.com/q/113427 meta.stackexchange.com/q/149087 meta.stackexchange.com/q/152597 meta.stackexchange.com/q/144557 That's just meta posts... | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 16:24 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | Mostly the situation, though it seems most of SF is ready to nuke the SO->SF migration option (for users). However, we don't have control over it, only the Site Developers. The Devs aren't entirely comfortable with this option and have been dragging their feet looking for a "better" option. Proposed: 1. People who vote to migrate would require a minimum rep on target site 2. If migration rejected, the migrators receive a rep penalty. 3. Require acceptance at target | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 15:52 | comment | added | John K. N. | BTW I like discussions and I like kicking trees to see if apples or pears are going to drop from the branches. Leave me a two worder and I will refrain from bringing up further suggestions to this issue. I've learnt the hard way that it sometimes helps to have somebody from outside bring up some new suggestions or thoughts. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 15:48 | comment | added | John K. N. | @ChrisS I see it like this: SO is sending to SF. SF doesn't want SO's questions. SF rejects. SO still sends. SF is not amused. SF should do something because SO will not. SF is undecided (possibly because of the consequences of SF starting a ban on SO?). You're all not comfortable with the current situation, but are undecided on how to continue. Am I correct? A lot of the "Answers" here concerning this issue don't seem to be answers, but are IMO statements. (perhaps, then so be it). At work we have the motto "Just do it!" Isn't it that simple if the majority is behind the vote? | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 15:23 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | @hot2use Don't mind the down-vote too much, it simply means I disagree with whatever you're trying to say. There's no rep consequences on meta. I still don't see where you actually answer the Question on this page. We're well past the point of "should we talk about it", which is what your "Answer" seems to be proposing (honestly it's hard to tell with all those extra words in there). This has been an ongoing problem for years, we're at the boiling point of "should we just nuke'm?". Unless you're Answering "yes" or "no" with why, you should explain why the premise of the question is moot. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 15:16 | comment | added | John K. N. | @ChrisS There are multiple answers and they're not. Two solutions are: Get an rfc and get it done with. (ITIL perspective) -OR- Bring up a solution and implement it (conflict management). Yes, you're right my last sentence leads to believe otherwise. Thanks for the down-vote. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 15:08 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | Erm, did I miss something in there or does this not actually suggest any sort of "Answer" whatsoever to the Question/Problem? | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 9:49 | comment | added | user9517 Mod | @hot2use: There have been many solutions to the problem proposed over the years and the people who can implement them (SE) have declined to do so. The distillate really is you're in or you're not. | |
| Nov 20, 2012 at 7:15 | comment | added | John K. N. | Thanks for the comments @MDMarra and John Gardeniers. Yes, it's been four interesting days so far. I keep wondering where you've been all these years. ;-) So you have a solution and you want a change? What is keeping you from implementing the solution? Is the solution too drastic? Have you had a look at alternatives? (Well you have, but they don't seem to have led anywhere) Why don't you follow up on some of the alternatives and implement some not so drastic meassures? Is it really down to "nuclear or nothing"? | |
| Nov 19, 2012 at 22:55 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | For the benefit of those who've only been participating on SF for 4 days, this problem has not had a month's attention. It has had 3 years of attention. | |
| Nov 19, 2012 at 20:26 | comment | added | MDMarra | Sorry for the two long comments, just wanted to make sure you had a summary of the whole situation, since you're a relatively new user :) | |
| Nov 19, 2012 at 20:26 | comment | added | MDMarra | So it's bothersome to most of the high rep users that take it upon themselves to keep the community "clean" and on-topic. We've presented many solutions, but they've all been rejected. Shog9 (who is in charge of community management among other things at Stack Exchange) said that if it's really bad, they'll just remove us from the list. In this sense, we already have a solution available as suggested by a high-ranking employee. The question isn't about how we should handle this as much as it's about "is it time to go nuclear" since removing us from the list would be big. | |
| Nov 19, 2012 at 20:24 | comment | added | MDMarra |
It's more than a bother for moderators. If you're over 3,000 reputation, you have the ability to vote to close/migrate questions. There are a lot of 3k+ users on SO, and they're constantly migrating bad stuff. Also, if you're over 10,000 rep, you can see moderator views like migrations, rejected migration rates, low quality questions/answers, etc. Really, the difference between high-rep users and moderators is really only that moderators have a binding vote, whereas it takes multiple high-rep users to close/delete a question (they also have a few other tools like lock that we dont).
|
|
| Nov 19, 2012 at 14:07 | history | edited | John K. N. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Nov 19, 2012 at 13:04 | history | answered | John K. N. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |