To wrap up this discussion, I'll list the homework we are taking from this discussion. We will post our updates about this homework on the report talk page on Meta and its corresponding MS Forum topic. On Meta, everyone can enjoy the new section notifications (opt-in beta feature), which are ideal for this kind of discussion. On the MS Forum, you can also subscribe to specific topics if you wish.

We will...

* review the report summary to reflect better the content of that summary in the first paragraphs

* propose a way to include Meta in the periodical surveys mentioned in the report

* address any questions related to Wikimedia Space when the site is back (in addition to Gergo's reply, see SJs related proposal)

About missing more discussions directly linked to Movement Strategy vs discussions about the forum itself or social/collateral topics, we miss them too. :) Part of this is normal in a new online space that for many, is a new community too. Part of this reflects a deeper problem related to the state of the Movement Strategy process where the Forum is part of the solution and not the problem. The Wikimedia Summit is around the corner. This year it is all about Movement Strategy. It is a hybrid event, we expect strategic discussions to start in the upcoming days, and we hope this will help to focus, reactivate, and promote Movement Strategy discussions in multiple venues.

Before ending this email I want to mention this apparent polarization between Meta and the Forum. Our reality as a movement is way more complex, even within the subset of Movement Strategy. For complementary reasons, Meta and this Forum are very good venues to collaborate, document, and agree on the next steps. Polarizing these spaces so that you are either with "us" or "them" is not only pointless (who benefits from it?) but also misses the years-old fact that there is plenty of Wikimedians using other channels in (most of the time) disconnected or even invisible ways (despite everyone's good intentions).

One example: the most strategic discussion during the community review was the Minimum Criteria for Hubs Pilots. The discussions that went to the deepest levels of multi-party discussion and nuance happened on... Meta? The Forum? No, on the Hubs group on Telegram. There was also a SWAN call with an interesting after-party. We took useful feedback from all the channels we were able to watch.

Another example: this discussion here, off-wiki, on a mailing list that lacks the basic features of Meta, the MS Forum, or social media. It also lacks the diversity of representation, perspective and discourses that these other channels (Meta included) can offer. And yet it retains enough social privilege to be a go-to channel for certain discussions. We also collect useful feedback here, keeping it into the perspective of our movement.

We humans are complex and amazing, and the problems we want to solve in Wikimedia are complex and amazing too. Let's recognize this and work together for our common goals. This is what Movement Strategy is all about.