It's hard not to notice that some of our meta discussions are going in a somewhat toxic direction. The bulk of these issues surround migration decisions.
If I may (or even if I mayen't) -- we're engineers. As engineers, we realize that there are dozens of acceptable pathways to solutions. Sometimes the chosen solutions are ones that gibe well with our concept of what the solution needs to be, and sometimes they don't -- but if they get the job done, and the outcomes meet spec, we consider the process successful.
So, what is "spec" here? I suggest that spec is a) finding the asker an acceptable answer in cases where questions are of sufficient quality to enable that result; b) helping the asker, or at least providing the asker with opportunity to improve the question where a) isn't met; c) maintaining an accurate and searchable archive where people can easily find solutions to solved problems; and d) maintaining a pool of involved experts who are happy to help people.
Toward this end, I suggest that discussion about migration decisions be driven by OUTCOMES, in the context of both the sender and the receiver. In fact, since migrations can be turned down by the target site, perhaps even limiting discussion to EESE is appropriate. That said, the asker is an important stakeholder, with needs that are important.
Let's talk about a, b, and c for the moment. "This shouldn't have been migrated" is frankly a whine. "This shouldn't have been migrated, and because it was migrated the outcome with respect to a, b, and c was poor" is not a whine. If the asker got a good question answered, and got the best answer that the question allowed for, and the historical archive (including the migration path and pointers from the original site, maybe??) is intact, the SE process has performed to spec, and hashing it out over and over is a waste of resources from an engineering perspective. If the outcomes weren't good, then discussion is appropriate and helpful.
"D" is a little trickier to address. If people are offended by migration, regardless of whether a-c are met, the community can be hurt. If people find the ongoing argument about migration tasking, well, once again, the community can be hurt.
Additionally, we can address whether my spec list is correct. I posit that there are those who believe that every migration of a question that is on topic here is a failure of our process. I'm happy to discuss this. In the context of a-c, I'm not sure I can agree. If the question gets a good answer that searchers can find, I think that's an acceptable outcome. If those who disagree with that can link me to the "why", perhaps I can understand that viewpoint a little more clearly, and I'm willing to hear it.
As I've said before, I'm not in agreement with some of the moderation decisions that have been made-- I suppose that's one of the reason why we have community elected moderators. Even sans agreement on all these decisions, I'm still good with respect to "D" (though my "expert" status can certainly be brought to question ;). I can abide by the decisions and participate as a community member.
Now, in total frankness, the ongoing meta bickering might well chase me away from the meta. I don't say this because I think my meta participation is particularly valuable or necessary-- but I do want to point out to the participants that there is more than one way that a site can become less than pleasant.
In any case, I'd like to encourage people to discuss migration in terms of OUTCOMES, and express my opinion that migration in and of itself, even for on-topic questions, is not necessarily a poor outcome.
There -- I've done my level best to try to put this in a context that none find offensive. I'm sure I've failed, and I'm sure that I'll hear about it from the offended parties -- but the last few weeks have shown me why my parents used to say "Don't make me stop the car" when my brother and I used to argue in the back seat.
