Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
To add to Alexander Woo: nobody here can change the software. Once MO moves to SE2.0 you will however be able to make "feature requests", which you might consider doing then (though I think the chance of success are small).
And for my personal opinion: +1 to Yemon Choi
Sébastien, I suggest that you also see the section entitled "original answer" in the post
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/38639/thinking-and-explaining/38694#38694
The "money in the bank" analogy captures fairly well how these things work in practice. Similarly, it makes a lot of sense to me that a "visionary" question or answer should be well-written and backed up by a thorough knowledge of relevant technical details. And for what it's worth, in my experience, "visionary" questions that are well-written and supported by a strong technical background tend to be fairly well-received.
We've had many, many discussions on meta on what works and what doesn't work, given the functionalities of MO. You should probably become familiar yourself with those discussions before tossing out ideas. Just like in science: nothing is written in stone, and you are free to question the great Einstein etc., but to enter the discussion, you have to be familiar with what people have said and argued and why the consensus is where it is, before you jumped in the game.
According to current understanding, which seems pretty robust, MO is designed to work for precise questions that come up in professional research that you don't know how to address, but feel that surely someone out there would. Maybe you have such questions that you're sort of itching to know the answer to? I suggest you try using MO in that way first, and get to know a bit more about its strengths and weaknesses, before attempting to change how things work around here.
Sebastien, I am very happy that your suggestion has no chance of being implemented. But if you do create a separate social network that emphasizes visionary approaches, I will be glad to take a look at it.
Can we close this now?
Some more remarks on technicalities:
Not to take anything away from Anton Geraschenko, to whom I am grateful and who impressed me on numerus occassion in relation to running this site, but he did not write the software running this site and he cannot change it in any fundamental way. (There were some costumizations made to the site, eg regarding supporting math-typesetting, by him and some others, likely Scott Morisson deserves special mention, though these thing happen before I was around so I am not firm on the details.)
The main compotent of the site comes from stackexchnage (technically this might be incorrect as the name of the company then I believe was different but anyway it comes from somebody else entirely). They first made http://stackoverflow.com/ for programming then some other sites on similar subjects superuser and serverfault and also decided the could offer the infrastructure as a service to anybody who had an idea for a Q&A site on whatever subject and various sites were created on various subjects, one of them on math, this one.
Then for some reason the idea of offering the infrastructure as a service to anybody was discuntinued and the Stackexchange Network was created a network of numerous Q&A sites for all kinds of subjects, from IT rlated things to science (there is also a math site there, not this one) to science fiction to gardening, cooking, languages, ...
Yet, the service for existing sites was continued and this is the current situation of MO, a site on a legacy version of this software. However, MO is in the process of joining this network and updating to the newer version of the software which is however similar.
So, now what does this mean:
at the moment the MO software essentially cannot be changed at all.
once this migration happens it is in principle possible to make suggstions (to stackexchange) for changing the software (that then would typically affect the full network): for such a major change (perhaps not concerning the work it would take but changing the character of the site) this is unlikely to work out in my opinion.
since you seem to imagine somehow a site as a complement to MO, this is technically simple. On the stackexchange network one can suggest sites on a new topic, see here http://area51.stackexchange.com/ So you could formualte a proposal and if you find enough people interested in it, the site will be launched; there is no programming involved; you "only" need to find enough people interested in it.
As said, personally, I am not interested in such a thing. But I can imagine others might be.
1 to 23 of 23