Recently the close vote reasons were changed, with the loss of “demonstrate a minimal understanding” and "include valid code to reproduce the problem". In general terms, after thinking about it for a while, I support those changes in general; a question that is useful to everyone probably should be answered, whether the specific person who asked it made an attempt or not. (Although I might have made small adjustments).
However, the only warning that this change was coming was the discussion regarding improving the “demonstrate a minimal understanding” reason which is more about an incremental improvement than a full fledged removal, although some answers propose a change to "too broad".
I'm fully prepared to admit that I spend too much time on meta and I was still surprised when this happened; I can only imagine other members were even less aware. Had this been proposed in the usual way, less of this surprise would have occurred and it would have been easier to point users to the discussion, leading to a status-completed feature-request rather than an announcement of an alternative solution posted as an answer to a somewhat different discussion.
Where a change to the site is within the 'community’s’ domain', can a change always come through the following workflow, even if the change is proposed by Stack Exchange itself:
(Optional)Discussion regarding a general problem
--> Concrete feature request (gaining community consensus)
--> Implementation only if community consensus reached.
Obviously I wouldn't propose this for things which are within Stack Exchange's domain (for example; the top bar design, how adverts work etc). Listening to the community on those issues is clearly good, but ultimately those decisions belong to Stack Exchange. On the other hand, questions of what is on topic on a particular site belong to the community of that site.
This would mean an almost democratic process for these community domain decisions. Stack exchange is considered semi-democratic and I have always considered the definition of the community as being the part that gives it its democratic half.