@badmonkey842, I take your point, all this meta-chat probably should have a meta-channel. A part of the reason that we're meta-chatting is that the forum wasn't planned in advance.
Re: Structure. I'm personally in favour of sites that offer a few choices at a top level and more choices at a second level. A third level is great if you are delivering content but it isn't optimal in a QA focussed environment because people's problems don't fit neatly in small buckets.
Hey I wasn't sure where to post this, but one thing I'm noticing is that topics tend to get derailed frequently (maybe I'm doing that right now). I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing as having that freedom can lead to some great revelations and out-of-the-box thinking, rather it's just something I'm noticing, and I think it's worth considering whether it fits with the goal/mission of the site, and whether there's anything that could be done about it anyway.
If every topic is about everything (yes I'm exaggerating) then it can ultimately become difficult to find stuff later.
The effect, again, is not bad, just different. I.e. topics take on a more chatroom-esque flavor, which can feel very conversational and relaxed, and maybe that in itself is what makes the soup so flavorful. I'm curious what others think about that, I suspect some would prefer a tighter focus and others feel at home in the flowing stream of consciousness.
Feedback is the meta channel