I’ll preface this by clarifying that it’s purely my interpretation, and not something I’ve heard anyone else (official or otherwise) say, but in my opinion “attracting some community” should be an explicit non-goal of these types of decisions. I believe that that the idea of trying to attract some new community which does not already engage with the current users and/or where the current users do not have a clearly demonstrated interest in the subject runs counter to the philosophy behind both the tagging system and the model of growth of this community.

From the tagging perspective, there’s an expressed intention to limit fragmentation and encourage cross-domain discussions while offering “just enough ontology” to support a bit of organization and ability to focus/ignore the most or least relevant subjects. I don’t think trying to attract some new community with a focus on a specific subject is conducive to that. This certainly isn’t meant to exclude anyone or any (relevant) domain, but merely to say that we should want roboticists who are already interested and engaged with the community as a whole and contribute their particular expertise, rather than seeking to explicitly attract roboticists via a tag (or any other means.)

As far as growth, it is necessary and valuable, but arguably also one of the bigger risks to any online community if not managed. The invitation tree serves to support measured growth, while encouraging acculturation and accountability. I think any attempt to “import” some new group en masse does not contribute to and could weaken those controls.

That said, none of this is an objection to the proposal, just that line of argument.

In addition to the excellent comment by @abeyer, I’d like to note that stories about robotics are explicitly on-topic already via the hardware and programming tags.