If there is some good proposal for a new Stack Exchange site, but it does not really fit Q and A scheme, is there a possibilty or plan that an alternative scheme is applied? For example, the Area 51 site cannot be Q&A-based, so it uses another engine.
Some knowledge areas, like Academia, Patents, Standards, Open source software, unavoidably require sort of wiki based engine, to accumulate the knowledge, rather than collecting all questions (small and big, interesting and not). So instead of asking "what project/standard solves my problem?" I would just go directly to the solution.
Also it could help to keep data not growing constantly and keep it structured. I understand that it is not the main goal of the Stack Exchange community, so my idea is rather "how to help to create the knowledge base" vs "pass by the knowledge base and throw questions in it".
So for software developement, this could work really good as a platform to determine current needs for defining open standards/solutions, introduce criterias for these needs, and try to make it, not just discuss. So it could link to GitHub for example, when testing of software is needed.
Main goals and benefits of such a site/wiki:
- Keep important things in one place - knowledge base of existing standards/solutions and its criticisms, vulnerability, downsides
- Help people find the group of interest, where they can contribute knowledge and experience
- Proposals and collabortive work on developing IT-related open standards (not directly on-site, i.e. just link to dev.group, i.e. on GitHub and SourceForge), but track the process in form of important excerpts
- Avoid multiple (duplicated) standards
- Accelerate improvements/fixes, since hobbiyst works are often better that those from "academia" or corporations sources.
- Promotion of opened principle - community for community
- Many other things
So I'd restrict the subjects to important practical areas, which are fundamental for other areas, and touch a wide spectrum of tasks and endusers. Hot topics could for example be "Developing of high productive and high readable programming syntax and dedicated IDE".
As an axample (from area of my interests) consider such a workflow:
Background: I work on developing of my own font format description and rendering system, which is potentially a good candidate for a standard or should replace existing standards, while it is presumably just better, not bloated, OS-independent, open, etc.
Example of workflow:
- Start proposal in corresponding section (for example "textual information representation") and make overview with technical description.
- People that are interested/competent in the subject donate to the standard (how exactly, need to think)
- Good proposals become a standard de facto, in ideal case
- All have profit