Since there is a too small limit to comments here is my reply to Tiagos answer, since I beliebe his remarks helped
me get to the core of my argument. (Thank you Tiago):
Dear Tiago, I believe the underlining assumption that there is Project management perse and that sometimes classic PM answers are helpful and sometimes agile answers are helpful, this assumption is wrong. And it can be harmful.
This is the main reason for my original concern. You need to know what kind of system you are dealing with complex (agile tools) or complicated (classic tools). If you try to be a "little agile" in an environment that is otherwise shaped by defined process control of a classical PM you are going to make a lot of people unhappy and spoil the term "Agile" for many people (how it is done too often). E.g. typically dec teams are asked to be more transparent upfront without management having earned any trust for not abusing that, leading to dyfunctions that are then attributes to "Agile".
This I believe is the main reason many senior agile guys would feel comfortable discussing here in the just "Project Management group". And this leads me to my first argument.
I dont think that by having a too wide perspective of questions we are serving the interests of people who join this community best. This is may be the reason its so long in beta mode?
Its like with startups, each community needs its own product market fit. When people say "yeah! I would recommend that to a colleague or a friend." Me as an agile guy I couldnt do that for many of senior agile people I know. And may be its the same for classic pm guys here, I dont know.
I just believe all of this great discussion mechanics that Stack Exchange has developed could be of a great use for the Agile community, but it cant be used now that this group is Project Management, and at the same time discussing mostly agile stuff. Kind of stuck in the middle.