3
$\begingroup$

Following on from this question about extending scope, should we "unclose" previous computing questions. For example,

I would say that since there is only a few questions, we may as well open them. That way people searching the archives won't get confused.

Edit

I've reopened the above questions. The only other question I found that could be reopened is:

Should I reopen this question? Are there other questions I've missed?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ why not ? ok for me too $\endgroup$
    – robin girard
    Aug 11, 2010 at 9:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes to the ruby qn also. That is a bit more borderline but I think we should open it to be consistent. $\endgroup$
    – svadali
    Aug 11, 2010 at 11:26
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think that "data processing" is sufficiently within our scope to reopen the ruby gems question. It could mean statistical analysis, but it could also mean almost anything else to do with handling data. $\endgroup$
    – Rob Hyndman
    Aug 11, 2010 at 12:42
  • $\begingroup$ I would open the ruby question - borderline, but OK. $\endgroup$
    – csgillespie
    Aug 12, 2010 at 9:33

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

Makes sense to me.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

What about this question? Is there any change in the consensus here?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It fits within "statistical computing" I think. I'll wait a day in case there are objections. $\endgroup$
    – Rob Hyndman
    Aug 12, 2010 at 0:40
  • $\begingroup$ I vote open.... $\endgroup$
    – csgillespie
    Aug 12, 2010 at 9:32
  • $\begingroup$ Now re-opened.. $\endgroup$
    – Rob Hyndman
    Aug 13, 2010 at 0:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .