Continuing http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1751, is it a violation of the code of conduct or any other rulings of stackexchange when the author of a closed/on-hold question notifies (via a comment) the close-voters of this question after the question has been edited? Rationale: the author might wish the close-voters to reconsider their decisions in some way (say, by adding a comment of themselves, by up/downvoting or by removing their close vote or by voting for reopening), but some close-voters might feel annoyed, whereas some other close-voters wight indeed wish to get a followup message.

A clear yes/no answer with an explanation would be helpful.

  • 7
    Umm, I don't see how it is even related to the Code of Conduct. In what sense do you think notifying close-voters would be against the CoC? – S.D. Apr 13 '19 at 19:02
  • 2
    @Blue I don't see it either, but I learnt that some folks might be extremely nitpicking here. – user508672 Apr 13 '19 at 19:04
  • 2
    @user49915 I didn’t downvote, but I think the reason must be the purpose of your question is unclear. You’ve done some wordsmithing, but at least for me, I still see no relationship between the CoC and VTC, and therefore no clear purpose for this question. Is reading the front page consistent with the CoC? As you’ve defined “consistent”, sure, in that the CoC neither admits nor prohibits it. But what would be the point in asking if those two behaviors are “in accordance”? My sneaking suspicion is that you don’t believe the CoC and VTC are orthogonal, and are hesitant to explicitly declare so – Dan Bron Apr 13 '19 at 20:07
  • @DanBron Pardon me, VTC=? As for purpose, I believe that this question should be handled without a particular pupose. If I'd stated the purpose (the point, background), the folks would up/downvote the purpose rather than the plain question as it stands here. – user508672 Apr 13 '19 at 20:24
  • 1
    @user49915 Voting To Close (or related activities like notifying those who VTC). – Dan Bron Apr 13 '19 at 20:25
  • @DanBron However, I can make the question more precise if needed without revelaving the background (that otherwise could be taken into judgement, which I'd really like to avoid). – user508672 Apr 13 '19 at 20:27
  • 3
    @user49915 If you do that, I think you’ll end up where you are now. Just share the background, anonymized or otherwise abstracted. You won’t get a “yes/no” unless you ask the more fundamental question which you clearly have in mind. – Dan Bron Apr 13 '19 at 20:28
  • 3
    @user49915 Hey man, I’m just trying to help you get the answer you want. If you don’t want my help, I’m happy to withdraw it. You believe your question is simple, but all the comments and answers to date are telling you the people who’ve read it think it’s a non-sequitor. You can do with that information whatever you wish; it depends on the outcome you’re seeking. – Dan Bron Apr 13 '19 at 22:31

We have processes in place - reopen queues in our specific case if the edits are good enough.

We don't need the specific folks notified. We need eyes on posts, so they can be reopened should the issues with them fixed (and we do have a mechanism that's far less obtrusive). On many sites there's also informal venues of communication that sometimes speeds this up.

The code of conduct is about how we treat each other. If someone's gotten the guidance they need to fix a post to undo a close or deletion, I think things worked well. The mechanics of the site however should be purely pragmatic - on whether we get the intended outcome. In this case, fixed, better posts.

  • Could you please, perhaps, emphasize whether it's more a "yes" or a "no"? – user508672 Apr 13 '19 at 19:08
  • 4
    We don't need to notify close voters, and bringing in the COC in here is unnecessary – Aibobot Apr 13 '19 at 19:09
  • 3
    @user49915 It's not a "yes" or "no" question in the first place. You're essentially asking "Is X a violation of Y?" where X and Y have 0 correlation. – S.D. Apr 13 '19 at 19:09
  • I don't ask whether such a notification is necessary or needed. I edited the question to make it clearer. – user508672 Apr 13 '19 at 19:12
  • @Blue If X and Y have no correlation, then they are consistent with each other, aren't they? Say, drinking milk is consistent with being a plumber, right? – user508672 Apr 13 '19 at 19:13
  • 1
    Its got nothing to do with the COC. – Aibobot Apr 13 '19 at 19:14
  • 1
    @user49915 Well, if you define it that way, then yes. :) – S.D. Apr 13 '19 at 19:14
  • I see. I widened the scope of my question, since the code of conduct is not the only thing you might wish care about. when notifying (or no notifying). – user508672 Apr 13 '19 at 19:15
  • @Blue I widened the scope in my OP a bit to allow for more meaningful answers. Btw., asking whether "drinking milk is consistent with being a plumber" is in fact very meaningful: some people do wish to go to the john after drinking milk. If you belong to this category of folks, drink milk, and dismantle your WC after that, then you run into problems. – user508672 Apr 13 '19 at 19:19

You must log in to answer this question.