Timeline for answer to Should we consider planning a move off StackExchange? by Luis Mendo
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2019 at 15:56 | history | edited | Luis Mendo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Oct 4, 2019 at 13:48 | comment | added | mbomb007 | @LuisMendo snafu would also fit. | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 9:24 | comment | added | Luis Mendo | @xnor I totally agree. Very well put. And I have learned a new word, "kerfuffle" :-D | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 1:38 | comment | added | xnor | I agree that there isn't a need now to start a new community. Still, it seems SE is less than stable and we'd be best to think about fallbacks in advance. As you say, making a new site would require first settling some kind-of boring questions, and I think it would be hard to motivate this if it's not clear the end result would get any use. I'm tentatively up for waiting to see if (when?) things get worse. What concerns me though is how quickly things on SE could blow up -- just look at the recent kerfuffle -- compared to how slow building a new site would be. I don't have a good answer. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 16:29 | comment | added | Nathan Merrill | I'd personally vote for all-new questions. Yes, we'd get a "duplicate" quine challenge, and many identical solutions, as long as the challenge and answer weren't copied/pasted from here, we'd be fine. And if they were copy/pasted, they can attribute. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 2:48 | comment | added | Ørjan Johansen | @PeterTaylor Transfering questions and answers? I can see it now... "This site's content is under CC-BY-SA 3 or 4, we're just not sure which parts are which." | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 19:53 | comment | added | ngn | archive.org/details/stackexchange | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 17:55 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | @Mego, oh, I thought they'd ditched OAuth completely a year or two ago. Maybe they only ditched letting you use other providers. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 17:48 | comment | added | user45941 | @PeterTaylor Account association is actually much easier - SE is an OAuth provider. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 13:43 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | @manatwork, the challenges are licensed under CC-BY-SA. A fork wouldn't be able to sensibly transfer votes or rep, but it could transfer questions and answers. And account association could be managed by asking users who claim an account to edit a verification code into their PPCG profile. | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 13:04 | history | edited | Luis Mendo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 193 characters in body
|
| Oct 1, 2019 at 9:18 | comment | added | manatwork | “It wouldn't be a move” — Indeed. Even if members move, the challenges will stay. Then would we allow old challenges posted on the new site too or would we reject old challenges as already seen on CGCC? | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 8:35 | comment | added | Luis Mendo | @Sanchises Actually that's how I knew about PPCG back then | |
| Oct 1, 2019 at 7:25 | comment | added | Sanchises | Without HNQ I think a large part of the community may not have joined codegolf.SE. Visibility is a real problem indeed. | |
| Sep 30, 2019 at 22:47 | history | edited | Luis Mendo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Sep 30, 2019 at 22:36 | history | edited | Luis Mendo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Sep 30, 2019 at 22:30 | history | edited | Luis Mendo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Sep 30, 2019 at 22:23 | history | answered | Luis Mendo | CC BY-SA 4.0 |