Let me begin with this: my preferences lie far closer to yours, Gerard, than Diego's. I believe that we have a document oriented system that works well for stuff like encyclopedic content. But I think that we should be conducting our discussions in a discussion oriented system. That doesn't necessarily mean more structure- after all, Wikipedia pages are almost always highly structured documents- but it certainly requires '''different''' structure that might be enforced by software as opposed to editorial convention.
The central point Diego made starts from is that the current broken system has a POTENTIAL for unstructured, unaccountable changes by whomever.
You do not build on a fundament that is collapsing as it is. A system that is manifestly broken particularly on the one platform where our new users are; mobile.
I think Diego has a great point. By relying on software to enforce structure in our discussions, we will rely more on the developers. Let's take something that we all have a stake in as an example. In the beginning, there will be inevitably be bugs as the system is rolled out, and we will rely on the developers to fix them. Without the flexibility of our document oriented system, there may be no workarounds. That is something that may be mitigated with more flexibility built in to the system.
Diego touches on the need for flexibility within the discussion for many use cases, and I don't consider any of his requirements mutually exclusive with a discussion oriented system, as such. He seems to believe that we haven't held sufficient discussion on critical issues like the right tradeoff between flexibility for editors and structure for discussions. This sentiment has been expressed by several Wikipedians in this forum.
Without broad consensus that this discussion has been held, and the WMF has turned legitimate and sensible community needs and desires in to Flow requirements, Flow will not succeed. If Diego's sentiment is shared by a significant contingent of Wikipedians, we need to back up and do this right. No biggies. It's far more important to have the community invested in the success of Flow than to work towards deadlines. If we're concerned about getting this done soon for use cases such as those for mobile, we can accelerate the schedule as a community by helping the WMF. There is no shortage of opportunities to help at all levels of technical expertise.
If we are to take arguments seriously, please explain why we should in this instance. If dismissing such ideas makes him go away AFTER it has been explained why the arguments do not wash.. Well, the best that can be said is that it makes the conversation easier, it does not change the quality of the arguments at all.
Even if I were to disagree with Diego on certain issues, I won't be dismissing his ideas. Not because I want to recruit him as some sort of ally for the next battle. And not because dismissing them will not make these ideas go away, tho that is a very good reason not to dismiss them. I won't be dismissing them because Diego is a thoughtful Wikipedian, and all Wikipedians deserve respect and a chance to be heard out.
As a post script, I see that Diego wrote a thorough and de-escalating response. Huge +1 from me on that score. And then he did something that only the strongest of souls seem to be able to do: he apologized publicly for something he felt he could have done better. Diego, you have my deepest respect, and please keep on keeping on in this forum and elsewhere.
,Wil