Background:
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)

Suggested action:
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)
  • https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Evaluation/Learning_modules
  • https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_article_creation
  • https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Module_storage_performance
• The namespace requested here
  • m:Special:AllPages (in namespace 203 - Research_talk:)
• 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)