About this: The different communities have very different processes for making a decision. The German Wikipedia's Meinungsbilds ("opinion poll") is settled by a straight-up majority vote. Comments are optional, discussions are discouraged, and most people just vote without adding any comment at all. The style I'm using at the enwiki RFC that volunteer-me wrote during the last month is something you wouldn't see at the German Wikipedia. Every community has its own approach to these things, and that means that, no matter which process gets chosen, someone's going to feel like the "correct" form wasn't used.
What surprises me is that everyone's spending so much time on the procedural form, and on declaring that one group of editors has rejected the idea completely, but nobody's saying things like "Actually, I do want to put a binding rule in place that says no local project gets to create a local policy that says editors of the 'wrong' race/religion/LGBTQIA+ status should be blocked on sight, and no local group gets to ban those people from attending events" or "Actually, Holocaust denialism is a complete non-starter, and you'll get kicked out of the entire movement if you do that". I don't think any single person could come up with a complete list, but I think that between us all, we could probably up with something that extends our best, most universally applicable standards to the whole movement. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)