Generally Good - it's all about ExecutionEdit
Given i'm so against certain other Diversity WG recommendations I thought I should also note the positives.
Usability/Accessibility - so long as it's not making new or (especially) current tools actually harder to use for current editors, then this seems all positive. I think we'd be happy for a slightly delayed process if it worked for a broader audience.
Findability - definitely, a meta hub for tools would be particularly good.
Consensus/modularity - this is an issue. It suggests a solution for when a consensus can't be formed, but unfortunately past efforts have burnt bridges all over the field of technical development and consensus. If controversial/problematic bits can be built as optional add-ons then that's okay, but there's always the concern that support and patching (always iffy with the WMF) get's focused away from the desired areas of the community and into what the WMF finds interesting.
"Oralpedia" - sounds interesting. Could come with a set of problems but certainly a worthwhile goal. Remember that some projects already have spoken versions of articles which could be duplicated across to give a good article base.
Easier method to make new language projects - yep, the "paperwork" side of it could definitely need easing. I would suggest though actually increasing how many active editors it needs before start. I know that sounds counterproductive, but if the goal is ultimate broader accessibility, then it would actually improve that. Maintaining a tiny project requires experienced editors to both create new content, check translated content actually makes sense, and train and new editors coming in. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)