If you reduce the scope of the question to the actual questions asked you have the following two questions:
- Question 1: At what point do we actually consider the option of removing ourselves as a migration target? 50%? 60%? Now?
- Question 2: How do we feel about this now that we've had a month's worth of attention on it and are beginning to see things a bit more clearly?
Question 1 can be answered. Question 2 is a bit more difficult, because it's a subjective matter.
I'm new here and from my point of view (not being a moderator and/or somehow bothered by this discussion) I have the impression that there is a lot of frustration around, about how the whole migration/closed process works.
Looking at the situation with an ITIL view you have two or three options.
- If the moderation process is worthy of a change then open an rfc and get it done with.
- If the moderation process is not worthy of a change (previous rfc REJECTED), then have a look at the organization. Is the organization worthy of a change? open an rfc and find out
In the end you have multiple systems (SF, SO, et.al.) with different moderators and different skills that are allowed to push unwanted questions around. And it seems as if SF is historically the place where unwanted SO question are sent to. (Correct?)
Do you want to keep it that way or not?
In a conflict management course I participated in, the consultant said "If you are having problems with a situation, then bring along a possible solution, because the guys you are going to discuss the matter with don't have the same problem and aren't interested in changing the current situation".
This is highly generalised, but fits into the discussion I'm observing here.
And no, this isn't an answer to the question. Just some general feedback from my work in the IT branch.