I agree a bit with both Kunal and Asaf here,
I do not think our goal is to get it done **by paid WMF staff**, but it is also true that today that is the only viable alternative to get major technical work done. I do not think it is entirely fair to state that "status quo can be changed by just about anyone who is motivated to do so (...) just by doing the work". It is not a lack of motivation that hinders our movement technically, but a lack of resources and shared governance. I am not sure if the implication is that the movement should be expecting free (expensive) labor to fix these issues, but even then there is a very high bar for engagement with the technical community in order to have access and a significant bottleneck in both technical review of changes and engagement with technical and other communities for changes that impact them.
It is not only unfair to expect this to be solved by volunteer developers, it is not working. Why should we expect this will change?
Open source and accepting volunteer contributions is nowhere near where our goal should be. We need better governance and distribution of resources and responsibilities to volunteer **and professional** organizations that can bridge the gaps in our technological stack.
How we move from a state where WMF is doing all the technical development and deciding technical choices is a bigger issue. And perhaps it is in that issue that we will find an answer on how to improve the state of our tech ecosystem. How do we get from a WMF-centered development model to a decentralized one?
It is a bit disappointing the lack of emphasis our movement placed in this discussion in our strategy process thus far; and how we have set aside the little that did make to the recommendations in this area since they were published.