Overall I find the reasoning to be fairly poor. All the arguments for the tag to go can be attributed to most questions regardless of tag. And any reasons related directly to the tag itself can be attributed to other tags too.
Furthermore I think the only point that hold ground, should be resolved with higher quality controls. However I don't think this should be the post to get into that.
Answer rate shouldn't be used to verify if something is on or off topic. This is a slippery slope.
At the time of this answer your statistic that 66% unanswered questions for ML is way off. Given that it's been 8 months, that may be why. A quick way to see the unanswered rate of tags it to go on the 'top users' part of the tags, here's the machine learning top users. Here we can see that the tag has 34.3% unanswered.
Like all statistics you can make things sound better or worse than they actually are.
Yeah, these are both over the last 7 days.
More sensibly this isn't a good metric. I used to look at the top users page to see who's close to the 1k gold Python badge. And all the time I saw ~30% unanswered rate for Python consistently for the past 7 and 30 days. The number has gone down a bit right now, but it's still around 20-30%. If this is a forecast on how the all-time number is going to go then at what point do we have to say "no more Python, we just can't handle it."
Whilst this may sound fairly ridiculous right now, give it 20 years and the Python tag may actually have a 30% all-time unanswered rate.
I think that, due to the nature of Machine Learning, it is very hard to make a valuable review regarding performance/accuracy without having :
- Access to the data
- Time to fiddle with it
- Experience in the Machine Learning field
I feel these are particularly poor reasons to reject ML as they, within reason, affect the entire site anyway.
It's always useful to have the I/O of a program. With ML it's probably more important, but that doesn't mean the question isn't answerable. Maybe not in the way the OP wants.
Rather than banning a set of questions that tend to have a higher reliance on providing I/O, why don't we require more information than we previously have for these questions, or all questions in general. This would have the benefit of having higher quality questions, but we'd be closing more questions.
I don't think this is the question or answer to go into this, but I think it'd be the better option.
This seems like a pretty strange reason to not allow a group of questions. We got our question character limit increased to 64k or something so we can have larger programs. These larger programs take more time.
I don't think this is a reasonable reason to ban ML. We have had people complain on meta that posting answers to Code Review is long before. That's just how the site is...
To me this as a reason is fairly mind boggling. We have very few NumPy professionals here, but does that make NumPy off-topic here?
I was hanging around the Python Stack Overflow room for a bit, and a couple of times recommended people to come here if they want their Python code reviewed. But always stated that NumPy questions probably wouldn't do well, as we don't have NumPy pros.
I don't think NumPy should go, it's massive over on SO. We just haven't got traction.
I think that machine learning related questions will be more and more frequent and I'm wondering if they are really fitting here or if they should be posted to one of : ArtificialIntelligenceSE, DataScienceSE, CrossValidatedSE, etc(SE).
I'm a little disappointed that a fairly high-ranking CR user would utter such words. We have to fend off this mentality from SO, let's not fester the mentality internally too.
Whilst other sites may be better for some questions, without looking, I highly doubt they will allow code reviews.