Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
I mean the explicit meta of serverfault is in conflict with itself by nature of the fact that there is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the site because of its popularity. You can't possibly believe that you aren't going to get non sys admins posting questions on here unless there is a lot of education about the fact that there is an expectation that the audience is sys admins.
The problem comes down to the fact that, stackexchange has claimed to relegate all questions with regards to configuration of server software to serverfault while the community or the explicit meta of serverfault wants to maintain these question in the context of the "method" of system administration. Now that's an actual question worthy of discussion. If you really think that every question regarding configuration or executables can only be dealt with by system administrators or in the context of the the method of system adminstration, that's debateable, hence the friction. So superuser?
To clarify once again, I deleted the question because I read the discussions with regards to the explicit meta of this site. I see the value of having said explicit meta, and the value the major contributers get from it or the efforts of said contributers. I dont really have the motivation to discuss the abstract paradigms of system administration or see the point of doing so. It's entirely possible that the paradigm you specify is entirely correct.
I think this question ought to be deleted because it doesn't really offer a proposal to maintain a certain meta and the specified elements are context specific. In addition, it's title is an incorrect portrayal of moderators once you understand the explicit goals of the site. Discussions of the explicit goals of the site are best left to the already opened discussions. Eg, maybe the explicit ought to be changed (which I don't really have any input on, because I could see the usefulness of maintaining explicit order) but that isn't relevent to the context of this question.
In the sense that, if a question is coming from a position of examining alternatives from a logical standpoint of a sys admin or if it's just another, plop down a question of the top of your head. I think serverfault's explicit meta is actually VERY valuable.
I'm actually fine. I didn't realize the explicit meta of this site with regards to professional sys admins and I understand the difficulty of enforcing said meta. I think that it is a fine meta, but it sometimes difficult to ascertain if a does in fact provide enough context or not. Sometimes they do sometimes they don't. In general, I think I'll try to keep more general (l)unix questions to unix.stackexchange
