The meta community last discussed this in March 2014, at m:Meta:Babel/Archives/2014-03#Flow_on_Meta. There was consensus to not use/test Flow at meta, at that time, but the idea would be reexamined in the future.
Following the current mw:Flow/Rollout#Process, there would need to be a fresh community discussion to enable Flow at Meta, specifying which pages would initially be open, and which locations would require further/future discussion. (I.e. A few wikis such as Ca.wp and He.wp are experimenting with usertalkpage opt-in, and are also using Flow at active discussion hubs such as Village Pumps)
Ideally, the Meta community discusses Enabling Flow on these specific pages and namespaces, giving a green-light to some or all:
- The 2 standard "first deploy" pages
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flow/Developer_test_page - the local "sandbox/testing" page. (Could easily be renamed, if desired)
- https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flow - the local feedback page, for editors who do not wish to bring their feedback to mediawikiwiki.
- The specific pages that were previously requested (in the 2014 discussion)
- The namespace requested here
- Per-user Opt-in at usertalkpages
- (currently this is done by adding oneself to the list at mw:Flow/Request Flow on a page, and in the future it will be available (on wikis where consensus exists for this stage of rollout) via a (reversible) Beta Feature (details in T98270: Opt-in for Flow on your own user talk page)
I'm willing to start the discussion there, if any non-staff indicate that they would be supportive. :-)
I'd expect Meta to be consulted if we want this awful system installed. I'm sure the team has invested lots of hours in developing this extension, but I very much doubt this will make life easier for anybody. I've just tested the new discussion system and I do not like it a bit. Sorry.
I just want to hop in to +1 this quick. I'm the most active editor in Research_talk on meta by far and I think this would provide substantial improvements to my work and that of others. (Note that I am both Halfak_(WMF) and EpochFail) It's also relatively low risk because the Research namespace on Meta does not have much process associated with talk pages. As soon as I am able, I'll start an RFC with these details on Meta.
> select rev_user_text, count(*) from revision inner join page on rev_page = page_id WHERE page_namespace = 203 AND rev_timestamp > "201501" group by 1 order by 2 desc limit 15; +--------------------+----------+ | rev_user_text | count(*) | +--------------------+----------+ | Halfak (WMF) | 147 | | Nemo bis | 77 | | EpochFail | 59 | | He7d3r | 58 | | LZia (WMF) | 49 | | とある白い猫 | 31 | | Atlasowa | 24 | | Alexmar983 | 15 | | Cervisiarius | 13 | | NicoV | 13 | | Whatamidoing (WMF) | 11 | | Mautpreller | 11 | | Elitre (WMF) | 11 | | Rogol Domedonfors | 10 | | Ironholds | 10 | +--------------------+----------+ 15 rows in set (2.82 sec)