I agree with ACN's points, especially the lack of community review and discussion.
For example, in section 4.1 on prohibited uses it refers to "Do not break the law", but fails to specify which law, so as written it applies to all laws anywhere enacted by a competent legislative body. Congratulations: it's now a breach of the WMCS ToS to criticise repressive regimes, comparing heads of state to literary figures, and any number of things the suppression of which is in contravention of the movement values.
Section 6.2 says "if WMCS administrators fail to reach you within six (6) weeks". That's a pretty onerous time limit for volunteers. Being busy IRL, or in hospital, or… for six weeks is not uncommon and in no way indicates a stable tool is abandoned. Needing to take emergency measures more quickly (like shutting down the VMs) for security issues or the like is an orthogonal concern.
7.2 says Toolforge projects (but not other projects for some reason) must "Use any user agent information … only for the maintenance of your Toolforge Project". Maintenance of the project does not include content negotiation, progressive enhancement, and other functional aspects. Depending on what definition you apply to "user agent information" (since "user agent" is not defined anywhere) this could include authentication headers for e.g. Basic auth, or just the HTTP User-Agent header field, or any information about the user agent (like screen resolution, technical capabilities, supported content types or javascript features).
Section 7.3.1 requires all projects that collect personal information to post a privacy policy (and other things). Since section 2 (definitions) defines "user agent" to be personal information equivalent to your password, social security number, real name, and bank account number and information about the user agent is provided to all projects by the anonymising proxy, all projects are by definition collecting personal information. All projects with a web interface are thus required to post a full privacy policy. The definition of "End User" does not exclude the developer / project admin, so all projects without a web interface are also required to post a full privacy policy. If all projects are actually required to post a privacy policy it would be much much simpler to have the policy just say "All projects must post a privacy policy".
There is no definition of "collecting" so what technical operations actually constitute "collecting personal information" is unclear.
There is no definition of "user agent" so it is unclear whether it is intended to encompass all information provided by the user's User Agent (i.e. web browser), all information _about_ the user's User Agent, or just the content of the User-Agent HTTP header. This also makes the term "user agent information" ambiguous. (Also, please please explain to WMF Legal that the HTTP User-Agent header isn't PII by any reasonable definition. I've tried and failed miserably. This is more-catholic-than-the-pope privacy IMO, and I work with the GDPR in my day job).
Deferring a central part of such a policy to a second policy (x-site policy) that does not yet exist and is explicitly still subject to change is akin to writing blank checks or signing a blank contract. It is also quite possibly grounds for invalidating the whole policy as obviously unreasonable in contract law terms.
All these things are, from my perspective, fairly problematic, and most of them probably pretty fixable if the community was consulted. That some of them may possibly be harder to fix is not really a good reason to not at least discuss them.
Cheers,
Xover