While checking computational science meta today, I noticed that my perception about the proposal/site might not be true. mbq, the original person behind the proposal is not that much involved anymore and there has been some changes. See for example this meta question about their scope.
My perception was that the site is for "scientists doing science by heavy computations". But it seems that it might not be true anymore that there are questions about algorithms and distributed computing among other things. I am not saying that there is significant overlap right now (I haven't had time to go over the questions on the site) but I am now concerned about it.
See also my discussion with Geoff (one of pro-term moderators) here.
I don't think we want to see another SE site covering a significant part of our scope (as crypto.se did and hit the number of crypto questions on cstheory, see this).
Here are some question that I think we need to think about:
Do you think there is a problem about the current scope of computational sciences site? Do we need to be concerned about this?
What distinguishes questions that are suitable for cstheory from those on computational sciences and vic versa on overlapping topics (like algorithms, distributed computing, ...)? Is there a significant overlap?
What should we do if there is a significant overlap between the two sites?
As a side issue, I feel that we might have an even larger problem when the CS proposal launches if its scope is modified later in such a way that it contains cstheory, and I should say that the current attitude of the SE team about the proposal description is not comforting for me. As I said earlier, I support a math.se like version of CS, but I don't want it to start to significantly overlap with cstheory. I think the effect of crypto.se on our crypto questions is quite clear.