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?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ why not ? ok for me too $\endgroup$ – robin girard Aug 11 '10 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 '10 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 '10 at 12:42
  • $\begingroup$ I would open the ruby question - borderline, but OK. $\endgroup$ – csgillespie Aug 12 '10 at 9:33
5
$\begingroup$

Makes sense to me.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

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

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It fits within "statistical computing" I think. I'll wait a day in case there are objections. $\endgroup$ – Rob Hyndman Aug 12 '10 at 0:40
  • $\begingroup$ Cool, thanks Rob! $\endgroup$ – ars Aug 12 '10 at 7:02
  • $\begingroup$ I vote open.... $\endgroup$ – csgillespie Aug 12 '10 at 9:32
  • $\begingroup$ Now re-opened.. $\endgroup$ – Rob Hyndman Aug 13 '10 at 0:32

You must log in to answer this question.

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