For many years - despite often doing business as "Stack Overflow", the company behind the network has formally been called "Stack Exchange Inc". I've complained for many years that smaller sites often lack the attention they needed, and this is one of the few constants that reassured us that we mattered, as part of a bigger Stack Exchange family. How much we've felt valued has varied through the years and in past redesigns (of smaller scope!) we've often had to fight to keep our sites distinct in small ways (like the old per-site arrows we lost), to moderate arguments over design, to saving beloved mascots of the community. While we're under the same platform, the identity of individual sites - our individual identities - matter. I've gone into some detail on my concerns here. There's other folks who have expressed similar concerns.
I guess the question's in two related parts:
Firstly, during earlier stages, it wasn't set in stone that we'd be rebranding as Stack Overflow - and nearly every answer opposed the rebranding as Stack Overflow. We'd also kept getting reassured the smaller sites weren't going away... which wasn't what we asked. We were assured these were taken into account - but we seem to be going with the Stack Overflow umbrella anyway.
More recently, we were told that:
As mentioned before, Stack Exchange sites will continue to exist, but under the Stack Overflow name and brand. This change will not be effective for about ~14 months.
Feedback on meta has been nearly universally negative.
We help run a Network of technical and some very non-technical sites, called Stack Exchange (we’re also legally Stack Exchange, Inc.). Stack Overflow is just one of the sites, but we call ourselves Stack Overflow as a company, and most decisions are developer-focused, often alienating the wider Network.
With that community feedback in mind - on what basis is this change happening, and how/when was this decided?
There's also not really been any consultation with the moderators I'm aware of, and honestly communications here have been lacking.
Some of the moderators have also been trying to get clarity about sunsetting the Stack Exchange brand via quite a few channels. Quite a few sites' identities are tied to the Stack Exchange brand, and with Stack Overflow marketed heavily for developers, this is a concern for us.
In terms of both erasure of long held network identities, and the opaqueness of the decision making from our perspective, the manner in which this rebrand is going is concerning.
This feels like a very significant network change, with what feels like insufficient consultation with the moderation teams. We've also had lots of problems in communication. We're still unclear about what these changes mean to us or our options if we didn't feel this was right for the idea. While I'm personally opposed to the idea, it makes it difficult to make an argument for or against when we're in the dark.
Secondly, the smaller sites have historically been neglected. Often Stack Overflow got most of the attention, or various SAAS products.
Many of the arguments for rebranding under Stack Overflow make no sense. Rebranding non-tech sites under a brand synonymous with developers would cause more confusion, not less.
Without knowing what it means for―say―pets.stackoverflow or literature.stackoverflow or for the old Stack Exchange front page isn't really helpful in communicating to our communities. For that matter, what about MSE?
So right now, we're entirely lacking clarity, or consultation over major changes. We're somewhat threatened by our sites identity being stripped away.
SO's big, but it also has both its own strengths, and its baggage. With a few exceptions, I think most of the network sites have a better reputation for friendliness than SO―which might mean we have extra baggage (though $deity, the "SO is toxic" meme seems to have taken a life of its own). I'm not actually seeing any upsides here, and no one's really given me any that I find convincing.
I've also noticed staff saying in places when the rebrand happens - which indicates to me that the company has already chosen to go on this path - without any real consultation.
So, what is going on with the rebrand for the wider network, and why do we have to be moved under the SO brand umbrella?
(I've tried my best not to rehash my other posts on the design process. I do encourage the reader to take a look at those for a broader view of my concerns.)
