@vicky_molokh I prefer for the work to happen on meta. Chat is fine but is entirely parenthetical to the operation of the site.
4
It is used by a very, very small minority of the site and can become an echo chamber, I therefore tend to avoid it in favor of meta for policy discussion.
@mxyzplk Now that you raise this concern, I'm thinking meta suffers from it too: judging by the amounts of votes there compared to main, it seems like only a very small fraction goes there.
@vicky_molokh also true, but the problem is less pronounced, we can feature important metas on main (as has been done in this case), the discussion is there to have without getting lost in a stream on unrelated discussion, and so on.
TL;DR?
Meta is where consensus happens.
Questions and answers, have to be good questions and answers without chat.
Any Stack Exchange site has three realms for interaction, Main, Meta, and Chat.
Main is where the business of the site happens, in our case we ask and answer questions abou...
I know, Trogdor. What I meant is that he posted a picture of a brown hamster staring into an Abyss and hearing a voice claiming that "we have cookies". So I replied with a picture of Nanachi eating a cupcake (couldn't find a picture with a cookie).
It's very telling that the Stack Exchange, having defined itself by its ability to hone an interface that creates a community, has put literally no effort into crafting the interface for that community's backroom.
@BESW Oh, sure, there's the length limit on comments and their hiding as part of the design, but there's also the matter of them being rather impermanent and/or exiled into chat (and chats being subsequently deleted or at least frozen); that's on the community, not the software.
The Stack Exchange devoted years to developing an interface and infrastructure to enforce an epistemology that values pithy independent responses to clear, precise problems. This interface and its accompanying infrastructure actively discourages discussion, ambiguity, and accompaniment.