I think this is a great idea. However, some tweaks need to be made to the system to be successful. Mainly, we need some way of marking a feature as completed or declined. Otherwise when you list out the feature requests there's no way to see what's been done and what's left to do.
The best existing mechanism for doing so would be the close mechanism. However, there are a few drawbacks to this approach. First, it's not possible to filter out the closed requests when viewing the request list. Second, it would be better to allow discussion to continue after a request has been completed or declined, to allow for discussion of the solution or additional justification about why it the feature is needed in an attempt to counteract the decline.
Another possibility is for a moderator to post a reply, then have that reply become the 'accepted' answer. This solution would allow people to continue discussing the issue past completion/decline. However, one of the suggestions I made to Jeff was to remove the notion of an 'accepted answer' from this site, as it doesn't make much sense in a subjective discussion.
In any case, the best solution would be for a completely new mechanism that could specifically handle feature requests. But yes, I definitely think that UV can, and should, be supplanted by this site.
As of right now, basic UV functions are now being emulated through tags. To make a feature request, tag your post
feature-request. Similarly, bugs are tagged
bug. If your request is declined, it will be tagged
status-under-review are anticipated, but have not seen use yet.
This use of tags to reflect the status of the feature request may be temporary, but I suspect that tagging
bug will remain as the official mechanism for requesting or suggesting improvements to the site.