Quim, thanks for sharing.  This feels like a project where going part-way and stopping could make things more confusing, but seriously embracing the challenge of integrating the strengths of discourse and wikis, and ensuring the result helps streamline and integrate and improve communication, could be excellent -- and well received / used by more people than just us.  

+ Automatic translation of discussions is essential, tangibly useful for our communities, and very satisfying.  
 --> how can we bring this to Mediawiki?  This is a core question for community health, movement development, and tech.  It is a straightforward concept, not exclusive to Discourse, and we should learn from it.

+ Forum threading and features (tags, emotes) are nice, beloved by some. This is the third attempt to start a WM-related discourse.
 --> how might we support integrating discourse into a) mediawiki, b) interwiki links? (so that a forum post could link to m:Power_structure, and a meta post could link to f:Wikischool)

– Wikimedia Space was closed after a year, and its links no longer resolve.
 --> how can we add discourse into current versioning + archiving workflows?

I would appreciate it if reports on this Forum could explicitly address
~ how & why Space was closed, and implications for the approach here,
~ how to keep links to Space discussions working/redirecting appropriately, and implications for how to ensure the same linkrot doesn't happen here,
~ how conversations there & on the Meta Forum & on other evergreen pages on Meta are intended to be kept in synch, for both short-term discussions (like rfcs) and long-term strategizing (like a page describing the history and state of an initiative)
~ what it might look like for this to later become a more standard part of our wikiverse (e.g., forum.wikimedia.org/c/strategy).  

Warmly, SJ

On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 9:18 AM Mike Peel <email@mikepeel.net> wrote:

On 21/8/22 00:17:59, Quim Gil wrote:
> Given that this Forum is especially conceived to better support those
> who can't or won't use Meta for discussions and collaboration, we don't
> think a Meta RFC would be the right tool for this task.

I think this is a good example of the problem here. You've already
decided that on-wiki is not the answer, so any appeals for you to do
things on-wiki get noted down in documents like this, and promptly
ignored. It's a very high impact bias that undermines the whole report
and process. A more neutral (and independent?) review that took into
account more of the options would have helped.

BTW, personally I'm worried about scope creep here - if it is just
movement strategy, then the damage is at least limited to that topic,
but it's already crept into being involved in the WMF board election,
for example. Hopefully at least that trend won't continue?

Anyhow, see you on-wiki.