We wanted to make sure all our sites have consistent rep rules, to avoid confusion.
So I understand why the reputation changed, but to me this is a poor argument. I thought it made sense that questions on meta generated more rep, since questions are more important on meta.
Here are a few reasons why it would make sense to change it back:
On meta it's very common that the questions have more upvotes than the answers. On SO it's the other way around. This indicates that questions are more valuable on meta.
Answers on meta often just include suggested changes to the suggestion made in the question. I don't see how suggested changes are more valuable than the original suggestion.
It is possible that there has been a thorough discussion on this topic and if so I think the notice (or the answer that is linked) should provide a link to that discussion. Instead the only thing that is linked is a suggestion to cap reputation for questions, which would make even less sense for meta.
If you haven't discussed the reputation change before performing it... Well, let's just say that would be bad and weird.
UPDATE: If anyone could provide a link to the discussion that would be awesome. I want to know what led up to this decision.
EDIT: Since the notice is gone, here's the link: How about a message letting us know the reason for large changes to our reputation points?