I'm glad that we're having this discussion, as there are several points being made that should be considered in the documentation and design of the global bans system.
I'm trying to think of what next steps would look like for reforming this system. I'd suggest something like the following:
0. Agreement from WMF to reform the system, and a timeline for doing so. For example, perhaps there would be agreement to start a "consultation" on this matter in Q4. The consultation could be designed jointly by representatives from WMF Legal, WMF SuSa, and community volunteers (preferably representing a variety of roles and content projects). Note that for this to work, the designers will need to cooperate with each other, or the process could descend into protracted disagreements that would make further progress be very difficult.
1. After the consultation is designed, it can be published for public input. (That includes input from WMF employees and contractors, individuals who are associated with Wikimedia affiliate organizations, and individual community members.)
2. Based on that consultation, the group that was assembled for part 1 can work together to design a new system. While unanimity is unlikely, consensus would be preferable. Where the group is uncertain or has internal disagreements, multiple options can be drafted for the community to consider in the following phase.
3. Based on the results from phase 2, a community RFC can be conducted. The RFC should be closed by one or more community stewards.
The biggest downside that I see to this process is that the community members who volunteer to participate in the consultation design and system design phases will need to commit dozens of hours of their time, and many community members who are highly qualified for this kind of work are already busy with countless other tasks, problems, and projects. So there will need to be some consideration of how to provide volunteers some relief from their other responsibilities while they participate in the design process.
Pine