Should the question "Abandon Vim and adopt Neovim" be allowed to remain open?

Question

Abandon Vim and adopt Neovim - hard reasons for not doing so?

Since my alternative multi-question approach does not seem to be gaining support/traction, I must accept the message communicated by that low participation.

Given the high-level nature of the decision to go/no-go with adoption of a replacement tool, i.e. abandon Vim and adopt Neovim, isn't there some benefit to the community to keep all the related material under a single umbrella question (i.e. SPOC approach) so that community members wouldn't need to go searching and cherry-picking from different responses that are unrelated to each other?

To repeat a comment that I posted elsewhere, I must say that to force the discussion of such an overriding issue (aka Risks of Migration) into many narrow, disconnected and disassociated questions is not conducive to having a wholistic view of the issue at hand.

Forcing discussion of various contributing factors, out of context of other factors, prevents a proper fleshing out of the full scope of issues, or making evident the inter-dependencies, one may encounter ... and need to fully weigh before making that final decision.

As a side comment regarding the approach taken by the site in regards to my question,

• I recognize the need to minimize opinion-based responses, and keeping responses fact-based;
• with my original question, I tried to achieve that but was told otherwise.

It is my perspective that for any community, there must be, on occasion, instances where the "boundaries" of the community must be relaxed/adapted to encompass a situation which, while it counters the original defined concepts for the community, does nonetheless serve to meet the community's needs by providing benefits that negate the "harm" perceived by allowing the community to involve itself with, or participate in, its continuance/promotion/growth.

It is my earnest belief that my original question falls into that category of special topic deserving of flexibility in treatment and review of the responses provided ... in order to serve the community as a whole.

Answer 1

Thank you, Ben. Much appreciated!

I really don't understand what you mean by

I hope to see answers or more details in your question convincing me (or enough other people) to re-open the question.

Not sure what you mean by "answers" in the above.

Or the kinds of "details" that you are referring to.

I completely acknowledge that the question is of an open-ended nature (not what Vi and Vim has as stated norm.

But the nature of Risk Assessment for Decision Making dictates that it needs to be. Risks are risks .. which can never be fully identified or captured, however much we make the attempt!

In similar fashion, a CEO can't be expected to know such risks up front or to be able to formulate/verbalize those risks in narrow-fashion abstractly, even less specifically. They understandably need to rely on experts, those with the in-depth knowledge and hard-earned experience in the domain.

Those experts need to be free to speak clearly, and expansively, at such pivotal moments (crisis of decision), not being deflected ... but encouraged ... to speak!

To come forward!

To inform stakeholders, to the extent that they are willing ... and that they see themselves allowed ... with the fullness of their insights ... in whatever form it may take ... objectively, not subjectively.

Yes ... those contributions might not be short, terse, pinpoint responses.

But if all answers are focused on the objective of itemizing and detailing risks related to the stated action being considered, is such a discussion not worthy of the community's attention and contribution?

Is the community not deserving that its members step forward ... to contribute to such a focused, collective distillation on such a high-impact decision for individuals or organizations, the fruits of which would benefit that self-same community, be it in support of a pending decision or ... in defense of, and then ongoing support of, a decision which meets with continued/ongoing resistance ?

It is true that such an expansively inclusive leniency regarding the responses, beyond stated constraints which are the norm for the community, should not be given lightly ... or frequently ... but some topics inherently warrant such exceptional treatment ... because of their "umbrella" nature for an issue/task at an abstracted higher level (aka decision-making in balancing risks).

I would like to further suggest that such questions would benefit from being assigned some "visible tag" which flags the review/acceptance as such an exception (preferrably before it being closed) so that the special treatment of the question is made obvious to the community and, by doing so, the momentum associated with a given "discussion" is not lost because potential contributors found themselves stepping away because of a CLOSED status. Better yet, that labelling of special status might encourage some, who might not have stepped forward otherwise, to share their wealth of knowledge.

I pray that you will see the merits of this petition and allow the question to reopen and the contributions by community members to snowball and encompass the bounty of the community!