I don't understand how a community defines its norms given the impact of those who are not part of the community. For instance, the most upvoted question on the OR.SE site is about finding open source software. This is currently closed due to the votes of five people who, near as I can tell, have not asked a question on OR.SE or answered a question on the site. They are, however, experienced in other sites on SE.
Similarly, yesterday, my review queue had a half-dozen suggested closures by someone who is active in 135 SE sites, but has, near as I can tell, no interest in Operations Research. They certainly would not qualify as "experts" in OR. But they also don't seem to be official SE people. Some questions were put on hold due to this.
In no case were there any comments that might educate or inform us on why these actions were being taken.
I thought part of the purpose of the Beta is to define appropriate questions: these "drive by" closures don't seem to helping in that.
So who defines what are reasonable questions in OR.SE? OR.SE users or these highly experienced, but not OR.SE, people? And, if the latter, how can we avoid the "hit and run" aspects of their actions? And meta- meta-, will this be closed due to having 2 (now 3) questions?