Ok guys, we have a problem. We have Computational Natural Sciences which is in committment and Computational Sciences which has 90 followers and it's close to enter committment phase. The second one was created in response to this discussion, but the result is that now there's additional duplication.

I think it would not be a bad idea to apply some diamond power or perform some vote to close. What do you think ?

share
1  
@Dori : The problem is that Computational Sciences was created in_response to that discussion. It ended up being too late, and now it's just an additional duplicate. – Stefano Borini May 5 '11 at 22:34

Well, those are not duplicates since Computational Science have a broader scope than CNS. And in fact it has different followers group and is developing much faster than CNS, what makes me believe it has a justification to exist.

share
    
if the scope is broader, then we should close CNS. In what CS and CNS differ, strictly speaking? math ? – Stefano Borini May 8 '11 at 21:46
    
@Stefano Kitchen of making computations (defined off-topic on CNS) + more and less esoteric computational disciplines. Anyway, the history suggests the team will not be eager to do anything before one of the proposals would reach 100% commitment. – mbq May 9 '11 at 7:43
    
Maybe we should let "Computational Sciences" take birth and grow before spawning more specialized areas. – Kris Nov 23 '11 at 10:24
    
@Kris This an answer from ancient times when CNS was in commitment and CS still in definition. – mbq Nov 23 '11 at 10:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .