* Stack Overflow is a site by programmers, for programmers. Programmers ask and the same group of programmers answers. Since askers are also answerers, the community can thrive.
* Gaming is a site by videogamers, for videogamers. Gamers ask and the same group of gamers answers. Since askers are also answerers, the community can thrive.
* Skeptics is a site by skeptics, for skeptics. Skeptics ask and the same group of skeptics answers. Since askers are also answerers, the community can thrive.

Whenever there is a disconnect between askers and answerers, there is a problem. A tension starts between those who only answer and those who only ask, causing drama and outright refusal to answer questions. [Some of the posts on this meta](https://ell.meta.stackexchange.com/a/19/257) make it even sound like this is a ghetto for those who aren't born native English speakers. To me, an "English Language Learner", this reeks of *segregation*, rather than an attempt to better answer my questions.

I am worried that the main force driving this site might be disgruntled ELU users who *really* don't want questions that are "too easy" on their site, but also don't want to close or downvote these questions. This force won't last forever, for the whole point of such a drive would be to *stop having those easy questions asked on "their" site in the first place.*

So, [since "audience and expertise" is one of the essential criteria for survival of the proposal](https://ell.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/120/what-are-the-criteria-for-surviving-to-public-beta/134#134) — since a site's topic is supposed to be mainly determined by its audience, the audience that will be able to give expert answer to itself — what *is* the self-serving, self-sustaining audience of ELL?

(See also [Robert Cartaino's post](https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5705/2927) about reciprocity and ELU.)