@vchuravy: sorry, but I disagree. You write in the description “to come together and discuss all things Julia”. This is exactly what I understand as meta. Why not call the category what it is?
- Site Feedback for me is much more limited in scope. Besides I did not find this term used even once when I looked at the discourse customer pages I linked above. There was (one time) a Forum feedback category or else meta (or nothing).
- There is a blog post from Jeff Attwood about the importance of meta. The examples he gives fit the meta categorization but not always the site-feedback categorization (imho)
- (In the ‘official discourse forum’ there is a meta (and not a site-feedback) category. A bit confusingly they mention site-feedback though)
In the previous discussion linked by you, @jameson was critical towards meta, on the other hand @StefanKarpinski was in favour of a meta category and wanted to rename ‘Site Feedback’. There was not really an extended discussion about meta; maybe Jameson would have agreed that meta is commonly used as a ‘meta-category’ for discourse instances? And that meta-programming would work well? I don’t know.
Would a rename be worth the trouble? If more people are in favour of meta I do think, yes. No need to not be (or become) mainstream here.