I went and looked at some graduated sites, and found that not all had perfect stats when graduating. In fact, some where weak on multiple parameters, and some had fewer questions/day than we do. (Couldn't find current stats for graduated sites. Does that require moderator tools?)
- Seasoned Advice was merely "okay" on both questions/day and visits/day.
- Travel, and Sf/F both were merely "okay" on questions/day and answer ratio.
- Photography, Christianity, Bicycles and RPGs all had "Needs Work" on questions/day, three out of the four were also merely "okay" on another stat, while the fourth had a mere 3.4 questions/day upon graduating. Our stats are better than that.
Given that other sites have graduated with worse stats than we have, and with worse stats than are demanded of us, and given that all those sites are currently considered healthy and productive members of the SE society, why can't we graduate?
It appears to me that we are being held to a standard that multiple other sites have not been held to. Why?
Edit: having looked further, I found that the following sites are allowed non-beta status despite falling short of the 10 questions/day standard: Emacs - 9.8, puzzling - 9.7, Mi Yodya - 9.4, Photography - 9.4, Cryptography - 9.0, Webmasters - 8.6, Movies&TV - 8.3, Seasoned Advice - 8.2, AI - 7.6, Japanese Language - 7.2, UX - 6.1, CraftCMS - 4.9, Bicycles - 3.9, Christianity - 3.9, Theoretical Computer Science - 3.1, Quantum Computing - 3.0, Sceptics - 2.4, Patents - 0.9, Expression Engine - 0.6, Stack Apps - 0.5. (source)
Which makes the question even more striking: Why are we held to a different standard than other SEs? Why are SEs with less than 1 (!) question a day allowed non-beta status, while we are being denied the same?
Quite strikingly, Quantum Computing is 10 months old. So it was allowed non-beta status with only 3 questions a day at the same time as we were denied it. While telling us 'no', another site with worse stats was told 'yes'.