Do we really need this discusion about "Do we really need this discusion about “Do we really need chess.com for go”?"?

[shinuito]

@Eugene

I think it is much more polite to have a meta discussion about a thread in a different thread.

Who wants their thread derailed by “do we have to have this convesation”?

I agree in one sense and we do have some previous examples of meta discussions of threads being moved to another thread, though typically they might’ve started in the thread.

Example:

Go Memes! 🧐

vs (for individual meme discussion)

Go Memes Pedantry

or (for meta commentary/decisions)

What should be in the Go Memes Thread

I think the main issue to watch out for is that when you make a meta commentary like “do we need a discussion on X” you would likely wander back into the scope of the original discussion within X.

@Atorrante

So why that focus on chess.com?

I think “why chess com?” might’ve been within the scope of the original thread, and part of the responses about Go magic’s pitch deck were certainly within the original scope.

But I think that discussion did bring its own useful element into play, different from the original discussion

@Atorrante

What also surprised me and still does surprise me is that OGS in my honest opinion (and I don’t mean to insult the powers that be) doesn’t seem to have a long term goal for OGS. Maybe too much ad hoc short term strategies, but not something like “in five years we want to be the greatest go server in the world, and this is how are going to achieve it”.

@godeon

interesting question: is there a public road map for OGS?

So I think one could honestly retitle that thread to be in line with this and it’s fine as a stand-alone thread with its own scope. It just happens to be motivated by another thread (as many are).