For every close reason, we provide an avenue for reopening. Not so for migrations.

In a recent example, I migrated a question that fit the stated guidelines for Software Recommendations a lot better than it fit Stack Overflow's model. I didn't choose Programmers because it was a question centered around requesting software.

The question was rejected for migration [because it did not fit SR.SE's requirements to a T](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22074895/what-can-a-relatively-small-team-do-to-ensure-code-being-produced-is-minimally-s?noredirect=1#comment33493202_22074895):

> We only deal in recommendations with a defined goal (check) and specific requirements (fail). <SR mod hat off> This looks more like Programmers material to me — solving a social problem which is specific to programming. –  Gilles 15 mins ago      

My issue is that the user is much closer to having a chance for a viable question on SR than they are on SO, but since the question was rejected they don't even have a chance to fix their question to better fit SR guidelines.

Migrations are a way to make the entire network work well together.

The current method of begging other mods to migrate questions and have them only accept questions that are 100% perfect creates too much overhead  in the wrong  place. If we care about helping users around the network, we should be opening doors, not closing them.

As a Stack Overflow mod, if I put a question on hold I do my damnedest to make sure they know if this question could ever be reopened on SO, and how.  With migrations, it feels like they don't get that opportunity because of the migration rejection.

I'm not talking about blatantly offtopic things, like postung a recipe on travel.SE, I'm talking about questions that just need a little work to be great questions on the target site.

Proposal: allow questions that are migrated the same 5 day on hold period during which time the user has the ability to edit and fix their question on the target site before kicking the question away.