Proposing Electrical Engineering site
I propose the new site Electrical Engineering.
We are a group 5 people that have agreed to be part of the original core of the new site. These 5 people include the four users with the top rep at the SE Electrical Engineering site, and also include two SE Electrical Engineering moderators. We are ready to go.
The allowed topics will be pretty much the same as on SE Electrical Engineering. This is primarily about the design and function of electronic and electric power systems, their theory, and tools specific to those fields.
We want to grow this site from scratch without mass-importing content from SE. Once the site exists, more experts will be invited. Questions will come when word gets around (with our help) that this is a good place to get answers.
Added in response to comments
Mathjax: We do need to write equations occasionally. Most of the time these equations aren't too complicated, but the SE site had Mathjax and it was used regularly. I'll confess that I never bothered to learn Mathjax. I got a lot of use of HTML tags like <sup>, <sub>, <tt>, <blockquote>, and various HTML characters like &PI; and the like. I'd really appreciate support for those.
Circuitlab: This was a plugin (I may be using the wrong term) to the web site that allowed drawing schematics directly in the post editor. Some people did use it, but there seemed to be lot of problems judging from the discussions about it in meta. The organization behind Circuitlab also seemed to lose interest in supporting SE after a while.
I personally never used Circuitlab because I thought it was pointless. Anyone who can spell EE already has something on their computer to draw schematics with. All of these programs allow exporting schematics to image files one way or another. The free version of several EE CAD packages is sufficient for drawing schematics and making image files of them.
Image files: It would be helpful if the exact details of image file display here is documented. You generally don't want the site to resize image files. Look at the horrible job this site is doing in shrinking our profile pictures, for example. If I know the parameters, then I can make my image files to suit. For example, I found by trial and error that SE didn't start mangling image files until they exceeded 640 pixels wide. If I needed to start with something bigger, I shrunk it myself to 640 pixels so that I could apply proper anti-aliasing.
General Engineering site: There should be a separate Electrical Engineering site. General engineering is too broad. Take a look at the EE and general engineering sites on SE and see that the former has way more traffic than the latter. One key to a successful site is to have a clear and sufficiently narrow focus. EE achieves that. I participated in the general engineering site on SE too. My impression of why it never really took off is that it was too broad. Most questions ended up being about civil or mechanical engineering. Two separate sites for those would probably have been more healthy.
So what happens now? I looked around but didn't find a description of the process for bringing up a new site. I noticed that the tag "status-definition" was added. I guess that means the site is in the definition phase? What still needs to be defined? Is there something we are supposed to be doing right now? As I said above, we're ready to go and do some work.
Response to more comments
URL: I don't have a good answer. Suggestions?
I just checked, and SE used "electronics", although that is probably for historical reasons when the site had a different name. (Electronics attracted too many people that wanted to know how to set the time on their VCR.) That still might work here anyway, since it would be the URL only and the site would clearly be labeled Electrical Engineering. Another option is go with the long "ElectricalEngineering" because nobody types URLs directly anway. Or "ElectrialEng"? I'm hoping someone comes up with some better ideas.
Mathjax: Even though I never used it, I know lots of others did regularly. I'd say we need it. Hopefully the rendering speed hit isn't too bad, especially on pages where it doesn't get used at all.
Logo: SE asked this same question here, then didn't use the top-voted answer. At least that's one possible placeholder for now.
We'll try to come up with something that suits this site if you give use the parameters. You've said it should be 3:1 aspect, but what is the smallest size in pixels it will be displayed at? That matters to line thickness and overall detail. Do you need multiple versions for different resolutions?
What you asked are all good questions. Since the answers depend considerably on opinion, I'd like to hear what others have to say and see if we can come up with something we are all OK with. So far I've been trying to run interference for the group, but it's time to get everyone involved. I see Dave Tweed has already chimed in. I'll try to get the other three to do so also.