Heads Up: Direction On The Way (important)
Thanks for getting to the bottom of things, Bodnotbod. This is helpful, although I'm sure people will have more questions.
From a community health standpoint, a lot of our recommendations could be achieved (in theory) without the foundation. Usability features and social networking features require some real investment. But volunteer recognition, stronger volunteer roles, and better dispute resolution processes could all be championed from the bottom up. The problem is a lot of those things never get championed, because there is resistance. Not the kind of fundamental resistance that conflicts with the mission -- like paid-only editing, or other occasional suggestions that are hugely unpopular. But we know how hard it is to build consensus on Wikipedia, and even a highly committed group of 10-20 editors could block something from happening.
Commitment at the foundation level goes a long way. Not "ram it through from the top down" kind of commitment. But the commitment to say "listen, we're going to do this. We want to work with the community so all the concerns are addressed, and so that we avoid any pitfalls. But we're going to move forward, because the status quo is not an option."
Actually, I am afraid the problem is that big project communities would reject all our proposals right away if put on vote, and we need to think what do we want to think about this (just impose them by the will of the Foundation, try to convince the communities first by carefully explaining what we suggest, or just put on vote).
Yep, 100%. Some of them would be blocked catastrophically. Others would be blocked narrowly, due to campaigns and tactics. Some amount of commitment from the foundation is essential. But we also have to recognize that Wikipedia prides itself on its openness, so there has to be *some* room for community feedback (even if it's just on the details of implementation).
Play the openness card to the maximum because there will be always people going against a proposal because they feel left out of the discussion process even if that their faults to not join in. Philippe did a lot to advertise our discussion but as always that won't be enough for some editors. Strategy wiki Cabal/Conspiracy anyone?
Use each Wiki context to illustrate the need to implement recommendation. The most blatant example is the "Improved consensus-building processes" that is an answer to the current English wiki BLP RFC which is a total disaster as a consensus-building process regardless the final compromises.