I am ...dissatisfied with this from at least two perspectives. One perspective is that as a Programmer, one is that as a member of the Code Review Community

@200_success: Come on. You know we hear you. We are listening. We can't implement every piece of feedback we receive, and we can't customize every process for each community. [..]

This thing shows a very simple misconception about graduation and the steps associated with it. Let's run this as a codereview:

You are tightly coupling together the following things:

###Group one:

• the beta label is removed
• elections are held
• migration paths are set up
• community ads are run
• a link to the site is added to the footer

###Group two:

• the site gets their custom design.
• privilege thresholds are increased to graduated site levels

then you say: "We cannot customize every process for each community". This is wrong

You are restraining yourself and then take the boundaries you place upon yourself as absolute. Boundaries and processes you place upon yourself should be flexible.

My programmer perspective weeps at the tight coupling you place upon yourself. It bleeds into the codebase, it bleeds into your processes and the machine you built is becoming inflexible.

You hear a complaint: "This is not flexible enough", and answer "We cannot customize it further". Why?

You should separate responsibilities. Each of these things is and should be something distinct. You should be able to turn each of these on and off, irrespective of soft terms like "graduated" or "undergraduate / beta / whatever"

If process X is not customizable enough, split it up into subprocesses. For common combinations you can provide a template.
As demonstrated on Code Review, generally tying these groups together makes no sense when seen from outside.

I say: make each of these things separate and remove the whole "graduation is a really big thing" nonsense from your process. There is no such thing as graduation. It's only about establishment and what the community can handle.

Quoting from the "Graduation, Site Closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites"

#Success and graduation are not the same thing

Then remove the term graduation. Sites are successful and established or on the way to that.

Unhealthy sites are closed. There's nothing other than that in the lifecycle of a public site.

The Stack Exchange network should not be a 2-caste system. There is nothing wrong with beta sites and there's nothing wrong with graduated sites. They are only distinguishable by some arbitrary term, that you thought was an appropriate measurement. You say yourself:

Regardless of how small the site might be, you have a home here in the SE network.

You decided yourself: This measurement does not reflect reality.

#Why are you keeping it?

Yes, I am proposing to remove the whole graduation thing.
Yes that is a huge change to how things work.
Yes that will need further accomodation.
Yes it will take time.

But I am not content with this misfitting model of site-health where sites are categorized into "beta" and "graduated", regardless of what the site does to make the internet better. And it seems I am not the only one

I am ...dissatisfied with this from at least two perspectives. One perspective is that as a Programmer, one is that as a member of the Code Review Community

@200_success: Come on. You know we hear you. We are listening. We can't implement every piece of feedback we receive, and we can't customize every process for each community. [..]

This thing shows a very simple misconception about graduation and the steps associated with it. Let's run this as a codereview:

You are tightly coupling together the following things:

Group one:

• the beta label is removed
• elections are held
• migration paths are set up
• community ads are run
• a link to the site is added to the footer

Group two:

• the site gets their custom design.
• privilege thresholds are increased to graduated site levels

then you say: "We cannot customize every process for each community". This is wrong

You are restraining yourself and then take the boundaries you place upon yourself as absolute. Boundaries and processes you place upon yourself should be flexible.

My programmer perspective weeps at the tight coupling you place upon yourself. It bleeds into the codebase, it bleeds into your processes and the machine you built is becoming inflexible.

You hear a complaint: "This is not flexible enough", and answer "We cannot customize it further". Why?

You should separate responsibilities. Each of these things is and should be something distinct. You should be able to turn each of these on and off, irrespective of soft terms like "graduated" or "undergraduate / beta / whatever"

If process X is not customizable enough, split it up into subprocesses. For common combinations you can provide a template.
As demonstrated on Code Review, generally tying these groups together makes no sense when seen from outside.

I say: make each of these things separate and remove the whole "graduation is a really big thing" nonsense from your process. There is no such thing as graduation. It's only about establishment and what the community can handle.

Quoting from the "Graduation, Site Closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites"

Success and graduation are not the same thing

Then remove the term graduation. Sites are successful and established or on the way to that.

Unhealthy sites are closed. There's nothing other than that in the lifecycle of a public site.

The Stack Exchange network should not be a 2-caste system. There is nothing wrong with beta sites and there's nothing wrong with graduated sites. They are only distinguishable by some arbitrary term, that you thought was an appropriate measurement. You say yourself:

Regardless of how small the site might be, you have a home here in the SE network.

You decided yourself: This measurement does not reflect reality.

Why are you keeping it?

Yes, I am proposing to remove the whole graduation thing.
Yes that is a huge change to how things work.
Yes that will need further accomodation.
Yes it will take time.

But I am not content with this misfitting model of site-health where sites are categorized into "beta" and "graduated", regardless of what the site does to make the internet better. And it seems I am not the only one

I am ...dissatisfied with this from at least two perspectives. One perspective is that as a Programmer, one is that as a member of the Code Review Community

@200_success: Come on. You know we hear you. We are listening. We can't implement every piece of feedback we receive, and we can't customize every process for each community. [..]

This thing shows a very simple misconception about graduation and the steps associated with it. Let's run this as a codereview:

You are tightly coupling together the following things:

###Group one:

• the beta label is removed
• elections are held
• migration paths are set up
• community ads are run
• a link to the site is added to the footer

###Group two:

• the site gets their custom design.
• privilege thresholds are increased to graduated site levels

then you say: "We cannot customize every process for each community". This is wrong

You are restraining yourself and then take the boundaries you place upon yourself as absolute. Boundaries and processes you place upon yourself should be flexible.

My programmer perspective weeps at the tight coupling you place upon yourself. It bleeds into the codebase, it bleeds into your processes and the machine you built is becoming inflexible.

You hear a complaint: "This is not flexible enough", and answer "We cannot customize it further". Why?

You should separate responsibilities. Each of these things is and should be something distinct. You should be able to turn each of these on and off, irrespective of soft terms like "graduated" or "undergraduate / beta / whatever"

If process X is not customizable enough, split it up into subprocesses. For common combinations you can provide a template.
As demonstrated on Code Review, generally tying these groups together makes no sense when seen from outside.

I say: make each of these things separate and remove the whole "graduation is a really big thing" nonsense from your process. There is no such thing as graduation. It's only about establishment and what the community can handle.

Quoting from the "Graduation, Site Closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites"

#Success and graduation are not the same thing

Then remove the term graduation. Sites are successful and established or on the way to that.

Unhealthy sites are closed. There's nothing other than that in the lifecycle of a public site.

The Stack Exchange network should not be a 2-caste system. There is nothing wrong with beta sites and there's nothing wrong with graduated sites. They are only distinguishable by some arbitrary term, that you thought was an appropriate measurement. You say yourself:

Regardless of how small the site might be, you have a home here in the SE network.

You decided yourself: This measurement does not reflect reality.

#Why are you keeping it?

Yes, I am proposing to remove the whole graduation thing.
Yes that is a huge change to how things work.
Yes that will need further accomodation.
Yes it will take time.

But I am not content with this misfitting model of site-health where sites are categorized into "beta" and "graduated", regardless of what the site does to make the internet better. And it seems I am not the only one

I am ...dissatisfied with this from at least two perspectives. One perspective is that as a Programmer, one is that as a member of the Code Review Community

@200_success: Come on. You know we hear you. We are listening. We can't implement every piece of feedback we receive, and we can't customize every process for each community. [..]

This thing shows a very simple misconception about graduation and the steps associated with it. Let's run this as a codereview:

You are tightly coupling together the following things:

###Group one:

• the beta label is removed
• elections are held
• migration paths are set up
• community ads are run
• a link to the site is added to the footer

###Group two:

• the site gets their custom design.
• privilege thresholds are increased to graduated site levels

then you say: "We cannot customize every process for each community". This is wrong

You are restraining yourself and then take the boundaries you place upon yourself as absolute. Boundaries and processes you place upon yourself should be flexible.

My programmer perspective weeps at the tight coupling you place upon yourself. It bleeds into the codebase, it bleeds into your processes and the machine you built is becoming inflexible.

You hear a complaint: "This is not flexible enough", and answer "We cannot customize it further". Why?

You should separate responsibilities. Each of these things is and should be something distinct. You should be able to turn each of these on and off, irrespective of soft terms like "graduated" or "undergraduate / beta / whatever"

If process X is not customizable enough, split it up into subprocesses. For common combinations you can provide a template.
As demonstrated on Code Review, generally tying these groups together makes no sense when seen from outside.

I say: make each of these things separate and remove the whole "graduation is a really big thing" nonsense from your process. There is no such thing as graduation. It's only about establishment and what the community can handle.

Quoting from the "Graduation, Site Closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites"

#Success and graduation are not the same thing

Then remove the term graduation. Sites are successful and established or on the way to that.

Unhealthy sites are closed. There's nothing other than that in the lifecycle of a public site.

The Stack Exchange network should not be a 2-caste system. There is nothing wrong with beta sites and there's nothing wrong with graduated sites. They are only distinguishable by some arbitrary term, that you thought was an appropriate measurement. You say yourself:

Regardless of how small the site might be, you have a home here in the SE network.

You decided yourself: This measurement does not reflect reality.

#Why are you keeping it?

Yes, I am proposing to remove the whole graduation thing.
Yes that is a huge change to how things work.
Yes that will need further accomodation.
Yes it will take time.

But I am not content with this misfitting model of site-health where sites are categorized into "beta" and "graduated", regardless of what the site does to make the internet better. And it seems I am not the only one