Although I am not so much involved on meta, I prefer the current Q&A format over the alternatives. Let me try to convince you that our current system is a good one.
The main reason, for me, is that the Q&A format tends to lead to a relatively focused form of discussion, usually concentrated on the main relevant issues. In posting an answer, a ...
Just click on the Blue Stack Exchange sign, and there's a link to meta there.
Update: This no longer works, and now one must click on the "word bubble symbol" at the extreme right of the toolbar to get to meta.
As you may know, our old system before the merger with stackexchange had a meta discussion board which is now called 'tea', and it still exists: http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/. There is a brief and easy ritual for registration.
A lot of people (including me) don't like the 'points' aspect of meta (even though, as Emil notes, they don't actually add or ...
Ok. I've lowered the reputation requirement here to 1 for the time being.
You'll probably want to revert to 5 at some point just to make your own lives easier, but during the transition dropping it seems like a good idea.
I also miss tea and I would like to have it back for discussions. However, tea was really bad for creating authoritative statements of policy that we could link to later, and meta is really good for this. Also, as JDH says, it was bad that it amplified the loud-mouthed (like me).
Here is a proposed compromise. Keep tea running and find a way to promote it ...
I want to respond to Joel's post, but I'm unclear whether I should be doing that as a comment or an answer. :-)
My main concern is that while we used to have conversations about the future of mathoverflow in public (i.e. at the old meta), they now largely happen on the private moderators' mailing list.
I would like to open these up to the community again.
It doesn't show on the homepage, but you can find it via the list of questions. This is status-bydesign; questions with a score of -4 or lower on the main site and -8 or lower on the meta site are hidden from the homepage.
Reference: Meta sites' front pages should not hide questions with very low scores on Meta Stack Exchange
When points are not involved, such as on community wiki questions and on meta, votes are mostly used for sorting: upvote what you think is valuable or important, downvote what you think is of negative value or distractive. This way, topics that the community finds most important or otherwise valuable rise to the top of this list.
As far as I know there is no way to make posts with very negative scores show up on your front page, but you can see a list of questions sorted like the front page but with no posts hidden at https://meta.mathoverflow.net/questions?sort=active (which can be reached by clicking the "Questions" button at the top of the page).
Thanks that you brought this question up again. The only answer for the question that you have mentioned was from François. And, if I understood his argument correctly, the main reason behind up-vote/down-vote system on meta is to bring the valuable questions to the top of this list. If we accept this, we can go with Stefan's suggestion and make the voting ...
On many pages there is a "community bulletin" box on the right side. It includes the word "meta" next to any meta posts listed there, and clicking on that takes you straight to the meta front page.
Alternatively, with an extra click you can select "help" in the toolbar and then "meta".
The question here is - who are you trying to get the attention of?
In your example, you're talking about something that the community seems to have weighed-in on at least to some degree. If you think that's insufficient, that's probably a good time to use one of the suggestions below.
Needs more community participation
If you think the community should look ...
It's cleverly hidden under the Stack Exchange logo drop-down on the right-hand side of the top bar (NOT the one on the left-hand side of the top bar):
Alternately, you can just type "meta." in the title bar after placing the cursor in front of the normal site's URL; in some cases this can be faster.
Who else is going to be there?
I think the current meta (I call it 2.0) for short is well suited for a number of
issues pertaining to day-to-day operations and to the SE interface, and 2.0 is
ill-suited for the long term discussions that need to take place to keep
MathOverflow the idea going. However, if there is only a small group
interested in using ...