<p>I agree with @ssdecontrol.  I am generally skeptical of "data science" as the big new thing.  I do see that there is a place for the discussion / development of some new issues that have arisen in the internet age (pertaining to how to implement analyses when the amount of data is so large that it cannot be fit on a computer), but much of the buzz about DS seems to be marketing hype.  </p>

<p>As far as having a separate SE site for DS, I suppose people can do what they like within SE's rules, but I don't really see a need for it.  There is the fact that it does not seem to be getting off the ground.  In addition, I gather that their best threads duplicate material that already exists here or on SO, that doesn't seem to bode well either.  I hope that users new to SE on DS will come over here to contribute.  </p>

<p>On the other hand, I don't see the need for CV to expand so that it overlaps more with other existing SE sites.  Practical questions about coding and implementation do very well on SO and theoretical questions about coding and implementation can be well handled on Theoretical Computer Science.  Although I always use the word "statistics" as a catch-all, questions on the machine learning and data mining end of the spectrum are part of our mandate and have always been welcome here.  I think what we need isn't an expanded mandate, but just a larger number of such questions and users answering them to reach a better critical mass.  But I don't think more 'how do I make a neural network in MATLAB?' threads will benefit CV in that way and swapping Hadoop for MATLAB won't make any difference.  </p>

<hr>

<p>Let me address some specific points:  </p>

<ul>
<li>I don't know why people felt motivated to start a new SE rather than contribute here and at other existing SE sites.  </li>
<li>It is true that our purview is more clearly defined and theirs is more vague, and that we tend to close threads outside our purview but they do so less.  However, CV seems to be growing and DS seems to be dying (I don't mean for that to come off as snotty).  It isn't clear that our strategy is failing.  </li>
<li>Better PR sounds great; at a minimum, it wouldn't hurt anything.  </li>
<li>I'm a fan of the SE policy of having different topics covered by different sites.  </li>
</ul>
