Non-MVP Discussions & Proposals

Some of the things we discuss are explicitly not MVP. These posts still belong in the ‘New site’ category.

They are generally things that represent the direction the new site/network/organisation will take, what it will or won’t do, and what features it might want to have. These are useful discussions, but lower priority than establishing MVP until that is done.

How would we best organise these to make both i) later discussion, decision-making and consensus; and ii) focusing most current efforts on MVP easier?

  • not-mvp tag
  • feature-request tag
  • a general discussion tag
  • ± other tags?

or, we could reorganise the categories so that we have (say):

  • MVP
  • alpha
  • beta
  • ‘release’
  • future

as sub-categories of The New Site category;

or, for now simply the sub-categories:

  • MVP
  • after-MVP

which could be further split,

or should we do something else entirely?


We have the tags #status-completed and #status-declined, although they are mostly used for errors/requests with regards to this forum.

However we will probably later use them to mark feature-requests/MVP proposals, too.

So, why don’t we continue the whole idea and create a new tag #status-deferred, which is for exactly these posts?

1 Like

That sounds like a good idea for posts which are proposed as perhaps-MVP, but the decision is taken to defer. Could work for purposely-not-MVP too!

My only reservation is that it feels like quite a dev-oriented tag and might be less obvious to non-dev contributors. That said, I don’t actually know of its origin, though I’ve seen it on Meta SE.

1 Like

We can also add the tag for now and then later rename/remove it without major problems. Any objections to using #status-deferred for now? If not, I’d start editing it to the non-mvp posts.

1 Like

The forum discussion now is around idea-gathering and starting to reach consensus on next steps. We’re going to need an actual issue tracker when it comes time to building things, and any decent issue tracker should let us set targets for when we’ll do it. My gut feeling is that “MVP” and “not MVP” is the only level of differentiation we need here, now, and we shouldn’t try to maintain finer-grained targeting here when we’ll also need it somewhere else too.

So “not MVP”, “deferred”, “later”… name doesn’t matter much to me, but let’s have one bucket for this collection for now.


I was able to add “non-mvp” secondary(? is that what they’re called here?) tag to my recent post. Should it be used to manually mark non-mvp feature proposals?

1 Like

What’s “MVP”?

I understand you guys are apparently a bunch of coders and I’m just a dumb electrical engineer. I don’t want to slow down your normal process of talking to each other. But, it would be nice if you define your TLAs at least once somewhere. If a topic is for developers only, which is something I can’t really help with, that’s fine. However, without knowing what the TLAs mean, I can’t even figure out whether it’s something relevant to me.

Fair question :slight_smile: It’s in the FAQ:

I’ll add it to the first post in this topic.

If there’s anything else that should be defined do say, it’s very useful to have a broad variety of viewpoints.


Sorry, I’m very new here and haven’t found/noticed a FAQ yet. I have been trying to educate myself about this forum before barging in and asking things, but the bits and pieces seem to be scattered about. I’m trying to RTFM, but you’ll probably have to put up with a few more stupid questions before I figure this place out.

MVP is “minimum viable product”, as bertieb says - the minimum set of features we could reasonably launch a site with. We have two tags here, mvp and non-mvp, for discussions about features that respectively should or should not be in that minimum feature set.

You’ll also find that every post is categorized; that’s the colored block and name under each post. This post is in the “Forum Feedback (Meta)” category. Most discussions about features for the new site are under the “The New Site” category (green), and tagged mvp or non-mvp as necessary. These discussions should not be overly technical - they’re intended to be accessible for anyone who wants to add their views. Discussions in the “Development” (orange-red) category, on the other hand, are discussions about the technical implementation of features.


We’re all figuring this out together. Welcome, and please do ask questions when things aren’t clear, whether that’s because you’re not a programmer or because you weren’t here a month ago when that thing got talked about or because navigation is confusing or whatever. This isn’t a polished product; there are lots of gaps but people don’t always know which ones people are tripping over. Thanks for understanding, and welcome aboard.


Maybe the blue box shown on top of the discussions should also contain a link to the FAQ. Maybe after the sentence "We welcome constructive contributions […]” there could be an additional sentence like “See also the Frequently Asked Questions.

1 Like

Is there any need for this? Tagging things #mvp implies their importance, and without the tag, the discussion is intended to not be MVP anyway.

Is there any need to easily find the frequently asked questions? I’d say yes.

Note that there’s more in the FAQ than just the meaning of MVP.

1 Like

Completed. The FAQ will now be linked from the banner topic.