Return to Answer

(This is coming at it from a different perspective, so I'm posting an answer rather than editing the question yet again.)

I think most if not all of the SE sites have the same statement Stack Overflow does: "We don’t run Stack Overflow. The community does."

At this point, some days after this started, more than seven eight nine ten times as many people expressing an opinion want the change reverted as want to keep it. That's a landslide in any voting system. Even if Jeff were right and everyone else were wrong, it would be wrong to persist with it in the face of this kind of community reaction.

The Stack Exchange sites are not a democracy. One person has the ability and in some cases the duty to override the community. This is the reality of the Stack Exchange sites and pretty much every other site on the 'net. These are Jeff's sites. He's better than most people in his position about giving power to the community, but if you thought this was a collaborative venture, if you thought you were a partner in the process, you were mistaken. Your suggestions may be taken on board, or they may be disregarded and your post expressing them deleted, or locked for months on end preventing you even replying with a comment. Maybe it's possible to have a truly community-run site, but I've never seen one. There are going to be occasions when that one, finally-responsible person has to override the community's will.

But in a place that purports to respect the community, put it first, let it run the show, that one person needs to pick his occasions with extreme care. It's not that this change isn't in the same ballpark as something worth rejecting the community over, it's not even in the same country.

"We don't run Stack Overflow. The community does..."

Those are easy words when you agree with the community, or just mildly disagree. The real test is when you strongly disagree. Persisting with this kind of change in the face of this kind of opposition to it demonstrates tremendous disrespect for the community and puts the lie to those words.

Let's not go there. Instead, say "The community is wrong. I'm right. But even so, I am going to accept the community's decision on this."

(This is coming at it from a different perspective, so I'm posting an answer rather than editing the question yet again.)

I think most if not all of the SE sites have the same statement Stack Overflow does: "We don’t run Stack Overflow. The community does."

At this point, some days after this started, more than seven eight nine ten times as many people expressing an opinion want the change reverted as want to keep it. That's a landslide in any voting system. Even if Jeff were right and everyone else were wrong, it would be wrong to persist with it in the face of this kind of community reaction.

The Stack Exchange sites are not a democracy. One person has the ability and in some cases the duty to override the community. This is the reality of the Stack Exchange sites and pretty much every other site on the 'net. These are Jeff's sites. He's better than most people in his position about giving power to the community, but if you thought this was a collaborative venture, if you thought you were a partner in the process, you were mistaken. Your suggestions may be taken on board, or they may be disregarded and your post expressing them deleted, or locked for months on end preventing you even replying with a comment. Maybe it's possible to have a truly community-run site, but I've never seen one. There are going to be occasions when that one, finally-responsible person has to override the community's will.

But in a place that purports to respect the community, put it first, let it run the show, that one person needs to pick his occasions with extreme care. It's not that this change isn't in the same ballpark as something worth rejecting the community over, it's not even in the same country.

"We don't run Stack Overflow. The community does..."

Those are easy words when you agree with the community, or just mildly disagree. The real test is when you strongly disagree. Persisting with this kind of change in the face of this kind of opposition to it demonstrates tremendous disrespect for the community and puts the lie to those words.

Let's not go there. Instead, say "The community is wrong. I'm right. But even so, I am going to accept the community's decision on this."

(This is coming at it from a different perspective, so I'm posting an answer rather than editing the question yet again.)

I think most if not all of the SE sites have the same statement Stack Overflow does: "We don’t run Stack Overflow. The community does."

At this point, some days after this started, more than seven eight nine times as many people expressing an opinion want the change reverted as want to keep it. That's a landslide in any voting system. Even if Jeff were right and everyone else were wrong, it would be wrong to persist with it in the face of this kind of community reaction.

The Stack Exchange sites are not a democracy. One person has the ability and in some cases the duty to override the community. This is the reality of the Stack Exchange sites and pretty much every other site on the 'net. These are Jeff's sites. He's better than most people in his position about giving power to the community, but if you thought this was a collaborative venture, if you thought you were a partner in the process, you were mistaken. Your suggestions may be taken on board, or they may be disregarded and your post expressing them deleted, or locked for months on end preventing you even replying with a comment. Maybe it's possible to have a truly community-run site, but I've never seen one. There are going to be occasions when that one, finally-responsible person has to override the community's will.

But in a place that purports to respect the community, put it first, let it run the show, that one person needs to pick his occasions with extreme care. It's not that this change isn't in the same ballpark as something worth rejecting the community over, it's not even in the same country.

"We don't run Stack Overflow. The community does..."

Those are easy words when you agree with the community, or just mildly disagree. The real test is when you strongly disagree. Persisting with this kind of change in the face of this kind of opposition to it demonstrates tremendous disrespect for the community and puts the lie to those words.

Let's not go there. Instead, say "The community is wrong. I'm right. But even so, I am going to accept the community's decision on this."

(This is coming at it from a different perspective, so I'm posting an answer rather than editing the question yet again.)

I think most if not all of the SE sites have the same statement Stack Overflow does: "We don’t run Stack Overflow. The community does."

At this point, some days after this started, more than seven eight nine ten times as many people expressing an opinion want the change reverted as want to keep it. That's a landslide in any voting system. Even if Jeff were right and everyone else were wrong, it would be wrong to persist with it in the face of this kind of community reaction.

The Stack Exchange sites are not a democracy. One person has the ability and in some cases the duty to override the community. This is the reality of the Stack Exchange sites and pretty much every other site on the 'net. These are Jeff's sites. He's better than most people in his position about giving power to the community, but if you thought this was a collaborative venture, if you thought you were a partner in the process, you were mistaken. Your suggestions may be taken on board, or they may be disregarded and your post expressing them deleted, or locked for months on end preventing you even replying with a comment. Maybe it's possible to have a truly community-run site, but I've never seen one. There are going to be occasions when that one, finally-responsible person has to override the community's will.

But in a place that purports to respect the community, put it first, let it run the show, that one person needs to pick his occasions with extreme care. It's not that this change isn't in the same ballpark as something worth rejecting the community over, it's not even in the same country.

"We don't run Stack Overflow. The community does..."

Those are easy words when you agree with the community, or just mildly disagree. The real test is when you strongly disagree. Persisting with this kind of change in the face of this kind of opposition to it demonstrates tremendous disrespect for the community and puts the lie to those words.

Let's not go there. Instead, say "The community is wrong. I'm right. But even so, I am going to accept the community's decision on this."

(This is coming at it from a different perspective, so I'm posting an answer rather than editing the question yet again.)

I think most if not all of the SE sites have the same statement Stack Overflow does: "We don’t run Stack Overflow. The community does."

At this point, some days after this started, more than seven eight nine times as many people expressing an opinion want the change reverted as want to keep it. That's a landslide in any voting system. Express it in percentages if you like (as I write this, 10.6% in favor, 89.4% opposed). Even if Jeff were right and everyone else were wrong, it would be wrong to persist with it in the face of this kind of community reaction.

The Stack Exchange sites are not a democracy. One person has the ability and in some cases the duty to override the community. This is the reality of the Stack Exchange sites and pretty much every other site on the 'net. These are Jeff's sites. He's better than most people in his position about giving power to the community, but if you thought this was a collaborative venture, if you thought you were a partner in the process, you were mistaken. Your suggestions may be taken on board, or they may be disregarded and your post expressing them deleted, or locked for months on end preventing you even replying with a comment. Maybe it's possible to have a truly community-run site, but I've never seen one. There are going to be occasions when that one, finally-responsible person has to override the community's will.

But in a place that purports to respect the community, put it first, let it run the show, that one person needs to pick his occasions with extreme care. It's not that this change isn't in the same ballpark as something worth rejecting the community over, it's not even in the same country.

"We don't run Stack Overflow. The community does..."

Those are easy words when you agree with the community, or just mildly disagree. The real test is when you strongly disagree. Persisting with this kind of change in the face of this kind of opposition to it demonstrates tremendous disrespect for the community and puts the lie to those words.

Let's not go there. Instead, say "The community is wrong. I'm right. But even so, I am going to accept the community's decision on this."

(This is coming at it from a different perspective, so I'm posting an answer rather than editing the question yet again.)

I think most if not all of the SE sites have the same statement Stack Overflow does: "We don’t run Stack Overflow. The community does."

At this point, some days after this started, more than seven eight nine times as many people expressing an opinion want the change reverted as want to keep it. That's a landslide in any voting system. Even if Jeff were right and everyone else were wrong, it would be wrong to persist with it in the face of this kind of community reaction.

The Stack Exchange sites are not a democracy. One person has the ability and in some cases the duty to override the community. This is the reality of the Stack Exchange sites and pretty much every other site on the 'net. These are Jeff's sites. He's better than most people in his position about giving power to the community, but if you thought this was a collaborative venture, if you thought you were a partner in the process, you were mistaken. Your suggestions may be taken on board, or they may be disregarded and your post expressing them deleted, or locked for months on end preventing you even replying with a comment. Maybe it's possible to have a truly community-run site, but I've never seen one. There are going to be occasions when that one, finally-responsible person has to override the community's will.

But in a place that purports to respect the community, put it first, let it run the show, that one person needs to pick his occasions with extreme care. It's not that this change isn't in the same ballpark as something worth rejecting the community over, it's not even in the same country.

"We don't run Stack Overflow. The community does..."

Those are easy words when you agree with the community, or just mildly disagree. The real test is when you strongly disagree. Persisting with this kind of change in the face of this kind of opposition to it demonstrates tremendous disrespect for the community and puts the lie to those words.

Let's not go there. Instead, say "The community is wrong. I'm right. But even so, I am going to accept the community's decision on this."