So perhaps a debate has crept up on us. I'm still in two minds about the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. But there are plenty of candidates for the ArbCom; which therefore must have something of a reputation as an institution putting down roots. I have signed up for the Systemic Bias project, which (non-radically) might be saying 'more of same, but spread the butter more evenly'. And the Version 1.0 and article review strand is not going to go dormant, I suppose.
Seems there are many voices for solidifying the Wikipedia's current achievements. And, while a natural empire-builder rather than consolidator myself, I'm inclined to agree with this as a main thrust. Wikimedia can hatch other projects. Wikipedia does a lot; it's the old goose with golden eggs, despite the voices who want platinum and less of a farmyard smell.
Does it come down to saying that choices different flavours of consolidation are the main issues where consensus is lacking, and on which progress might be made?
I know that I think that another 12 months in the same vein, with added server power, would do very nicely. The other matter that seems to me central is simply to get the coverage of the humanities up to the kind of intensity and engagement that science and technology has. Which I don't think is utopian.
Charles