In March of this year, Canonical and Microsoft announced that the then-next update to Windows 10 (the one we now know as the "Anniversary Edition" that dropped in July) would contain Ubuntu on Windows, a sort of-emulation mode that would allow Bash and a selection of tools and programs that run on Ubuntu to run on Windows. At that time, I asked a question about whether that could have any implications of cross-platform effectiveness of malware, exploits, etc. between Windows and Linux. However, the question was quickly closed, on the grounds that it was primarily just calling for speculation and opinion. As best as I can tell from the comments the question got, the closing voters thought that since the feature had been announced but hadn't made it into a final, shipping version of Windows yet (it was sort of at the beginning of being released to Microsoft's Insider beta channels at that point) any questions about it would just inherently be in the realm of speculation. And that was that.
Except that, of course, time didn't stand still. In July, MS did indeed partner with Cannonical to release a shipping, for-public-distribution version of Ubuntu on Windows on Windows 10. But more than that, a few months later at DerbyCon a security researcher actually gave a talk about his technical research on the security aspects and implications of the move. (Quick summary: It's complicated.) So, not only is there definitely a live question at this point, there seem to be at least some of the makings of an answer out there.
So I'm wondering: what's the best practice in a situation where a question that was closed* as speculative/opinion based has since clearly become not-speculative due to developing events? Re-ask the question? Petition to have the existing question re-opened? Something else?
*At the time, I voiced my disagreement with the closing voters' reasoning and decision. And I haven't necessarily changed my view. But... water under the bridge; for present purposes, I'm happy to assume the speculative-to-non-speculative view of events is correct.