Now I haven't (intentionally) used the mobile version (I have and I don't like it) and I can see why people would like something better.
However as the 'improved' version is not very well defined, is this a serious attempt to gather feedback beforehand, or is it laying the groundwork so that when the site is upgraded they can ignore all feedback and railroad it through?
The whole 'responsive web' message seems to be an excuse for web designers to jam a load of distracting moving elements in the user face so that they can't tell the difference between cheesey embedded advertising and actual content.
Personally I have found the mobile version of every site I have ever used to be rubbish - and I am concerned that Slashdot thinks that it can fit on a tiny screen. The strength of the current site is the volume of content it hosts (dupes and all) - and the problem with a mobile experience is that the damn screen will never be big enough.
If I could make the call - I'd suggest killing the mobile version.