and subsequently full of reasons why we don't need it.

Full of one reason: the gods -- which currently translates to 'two monks with an exclusive veto' -- don't want to be bothered with it.

But if you want it then go write and implement it yourself instead of asking others to do your work for you.

What a crock. Tell a guy that has no access to the code; to "implement it yourself". (That argument sounds familiar: Hi Mono!)

Is it really so hard? Could not one of the relatively recently removed sections -- Code Catacombs; Craft; Snippet etc. -- simply be re-purposed?

Inner Scriptorium managed to materialise from nowhere back in September 2004; so it is possible. It didn't seem to require a huge effort; and there were no major disruptions at the time.

So this isn't about implementation effort or willing volunteers; or valuable time of those empowered to do it:

Its simply about the willingness (or lack thereof) to recognise what the users want. Users, who are the life blood, and only meaningful reason for this place' continued existence.

what the users want

As if "the users" are unanimous.

Some users have got it in their heads that an OT section will somehow solve a significant problem PerlMonks has. I think those users are mistaken.

If someone could, please, clearly elaborate the following:

1. What problems have afflicted PerlMonks historically by the lack of an OT section and(or) the presence of OT posts in other sections?
2. How will the existence of an OT section mitigate these problems?
3. What are the potential negative consequences of having an OT section?
4. By what metrics do the gains (#2) outweigh the negatives (#3)?
5. Please take care adequately to address the distinction between experiences of the site from the poster's perspective and from the readers' perspective, in each of the above; and similarly, anonymous vs logged-in users where appropriate.

Many thanks.

(I reserve the right to add more points to be addressed. ;-)

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

1. What problems have afflicted PerlMonks historically by the lack of an OT section and(or) the presence of OT posts in other sections?

   1. The instant reaction to this: Perl Restfull call by Angular JS not working

      The Perl-relatedness is clearly defined in the OP; but still the instant reaction to the question is dismissively negative: "That's off-topic; take your silly question elsewhere."

   2. All the post's that I (and many others, but I have a feel for the occurrence with my own posts) that have been prevented from reaching a wider audience, by their languishing unresolved in the consideration process -- for being off-topic; even when they weren't.

      An example of this "languishing" is your consideration of the OP of this thread. There it sits; unable to be front-paged (not that it necessarily should be; but that's not the point) despite that an 8 to 2 majority have given their verdict. (The wrong verdict in my opinion; but that's by-the-by also :)

      I don't have any easy way to cite or reference them; but no doubt a god could if they so desired.

   3. The fact that I felt the need to avoid posting -- and the need to resort to the totally unsatisfactory CB+SP process -- the Javascript question I mentioned in Re^4: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? (CB+SP).

2. How will the existence of an OT section mitigate these problems?

   1. It removes the doubt about what we can ask.
   2. It removes the incentive for using the consideration process on the basis of "it's off-topic".
   3. Those people for whom anything not directly Perl-related is an insult to their sensibilities; or a drain on their time to read; or whatever other reason why we have to: a) show perl-relatedness; b) label stuff [OT] would know not to look.

3. What are the potential negative consequences of having an OT section?

   1. I'll steal salva's answer to that: I don't know if adding a new OT section to the repository is going to result in any overall improvement. What I know is that doing it is not going to harm it or anybody. What's the worst that could happen? an overwhelming number of off-topic questions?
   2. None.

4. By what metrics do the gains (#2) outweigh the negatives (#3)?

   Any gain - zero loss == gain!

5. Please take care adequately to address the distinction between experiences of the site from the poster's perspective and from the readers' perspective.

   I think the distinction is mostly artificial, and implicitly biased.

   Who is this place designed for? Is it the assistance of the posters? Or the entertainment of the readers?

   The reality is that you cannot have one without the other.

   But, you have to bias the balance in favour of the active versus the passive; the newbie versus the incumbent; the new-school versus the old-school; the "I've a problem I need help with" versus the "It's not a problem that I want to read about".

   To do otherwise is to ensure the steady and inexorable decline of this place into a 1960s or even 1860s Gentleman's club of ol'foggies discussing their glorious pasts.

   For every question one Monk considers [sic] off-topic; there are likely half a dozen other Monks for whom it is their daily bread & butter and would relish sharing their knowledge.

Are there limits to the subjects that should be discussed? Sure. But I think that the best solution to most of them is to simply let them go unanswered.

Or if they are so unrelated that we don't want there to be any answers, then simply freeze them in-place. That is, prevent any further interaction with them.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

1. What problems have afflicted PerlMonks historically by the lack of an OT section and(or) the presence of OT posts in other sections?

Past experience, we are told, did not indicate a need for an OT section. Some perceive that it would help at present and into the future.

2. How will the existence of an OT section mitigate these problems?

Gains would include a place to discuss related technology $_, but not in a Perl + $_ context, and without cluttering up SoPW/CUFP/Meditations. Also, a potential gain in participation from persons who otherwise might not have participated, because their interests were not Perl-focused.

3. What are the potential negative consequences of having an OT section?

None that I can imagine.

4. By what metrics do the gains (#2) outweigh the negatives (#3)?

See above.

5. Please take care adequately to address the distinction between experiences of the site from the poster's perspective and from the readers' perspective.

I don't know what you mean by point 5. Both poster and reader benefit from the clarity that a separate section would create.

Dum Spiro Spero

The very first suggestion given to you was I think there should be a new Section on PerlMonks for Jobs/Modules/Quizzes/Perl6/Newbies/OffTopic/etc.. Did you not read it? It is full of examples of what "a 'Related Topics' section could be used for" and subsequently full of reasons why we don't need it. But if you want it then go write and implement it yourself instead of asking others to do your work for you.

Are you really suggesting somebody go implement their own perlmonks as a way to improve perlmonks?

Creating a new sections is something that needs no writing/implementation, its already implemented, its as trivial as creating a new question or answering a new question, click the mouse a few times, type a little (title, nodetype, groups), and you're done

Given you know so little about how perlmonks works, I'm pretty sure you don't know what we need