Your link only goes to a page talking about how the feature will be removed, but nothing that defines the feature itself. A link to a help page describing this "developer story" thing, and a link to an example would be useful.

Hi @Olin - I was in two minds as to whether to even include the link. If the link isn't helpful, I'm certainly happy to remove it.

I really don't think Codidact needs to be constrained by the UI / design choices of any other Q&A network on the web.

Why not let's have chronological record of expertise as our starting point and we can iterate from there?

It's basically Stack Overflow marketing barf meaning CV.

As a record, it has elements which are superficially similar to elements of a CV or Résumé, but on inspection, it's quite distinct from a CV:

1. it's explicitly chronological (not all CVs are); and

2. it's subject expertise specific - which CVs certainly aren't

It's the fact that it's expertise-specific which makes it such a unique type of record - different from a CV and different from e.g. a LinkedIn Profile.

Rounin‭ It actually sounds exactly like LinkedIn. Now what's stopping you from entering such things in your profile currently? The sole purpose of "Developer Story" on SO was to utilize candidate searching/matching by job recruiters. It didn't have anything to do with the Q&A.

Olin Lathrop‭ For an example, see https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/313960/introducing-the-developer-story, https://i.stack.imgur.com/alOyI.png

I have made a feature proposal, @Lundin. You don't have to like the feature I'm proposing, but nothing obliges you to argue about it. If you feel the proposal needs a meta-discussion (I'm not sure I do) and you wish to pursue such a meta-discussion about the proposal with civility and good faith and some positivity, then we will discuss. Otherwise, enjoy the rest of your evening.

Rounin‭ No I clearly don't like it, but you need to make an actual argument regarding why this feature is useful here. We have lots of feature requests and not many devs. Therefore we need to put some thought effort into proposals before presenting them, explaining what the feature is, why it would be beneficial for Codidact, listing pros and cons, some thoughts about how it could be implemented and so on.

Okay, I see where you're coming from @Lundin.

The reason I am not prepared to invest myself in making a concerted argument for this feature (beyond initially suggesting it) is because I don't know what's best for Codidact - and it would be presumptive of me to imagine that I did.

I make the suggestion in good faith, because I wonder if someone at Codidact will think: "Ah, yes, that's a great suggestion - that will really benefit Codidact."

But maybe no-one will. Or maybe the overriding consensus at Codidact will be: "No, this isn't really what Codidact is about."

Whatever the response is, I'm fine with it.

My suggestion is there for the benefit of Codidact (or not) - it's not about me.

So, if the response is:

"[...] but you need to make an actual argument"

my answer is:

No, I don't. I'm not Codidact.

I don't mind at all if you take it or leave it.

I'm offering a suggestion, not selling a proposal.