Task forces burned out IMHO

I do not really agree. A collection of proposals can not be strategy. It only becomes strategy only after someone has read all the proposals, has chosen the most important ones and presented them in a coherent manner. And then I just do not see why the strategy input should be limited to the propoisals - I do care about strategy and was active in the quality TF, but I did not submit a single proposal. If you feel some of the proposals have been unjustly overlooked and should be used for the strategy planning - please bring them up here, we still can consider them and include them into recommendations or whatsoever. But I do not think that looking at the proposals and disregarding all the TF recommendations would be a good idea at this stage.

I feel several proposals have been unjustly overlooked because they were repeatedly excluded in a manner contrary to the stated process rules. Moreover, the recommendations which were approved are not coherent because they in many cases are not operational things to do. Many of them are merely platitudes or abstract wishes without any clear path to implementation. They are also not supported by evidence: There is no way to tell whether the approved proposals are any more likely to have a positive impact than those which were discarded because they were unpopular with the facilitators or the few vocal editors with the perennial axe to grind against anonymous contributions.

It seems to me that at least one of the facilitators is more willing to contradict longstanding Foundation policy than consider the possibility that he may have been wrong to do so.

"several", "not coherent", ? Please be specific.

Which proposals do you feel deserve to be reconsidered.

How would you amend the wording of the proposals to make them more coherent.