Are the blocking tasks being worked on or not? If so, where is the work being performed, tracked and reported?

I presume that this task may considered closed? Or perhaps if you re-start it you might like to get some community input about potential partners?

Is there any interest in having community input to this, or are you sure that community-led innovation is sufficiently strong?

Shall we just admit that this project is dead? The discussion has moved away, there have been major changes to the WMF internal organisation, a new strategic plan, a new community tech team, changes to major projects, ... the chances are low that this is anything other than a set of ideas to refer to for inspiration during the odd brainstorming session. The correct application of staff and volunteer time and effort is to determine why it failed and how to do better in future.

Then when, where and how do you propose to engage with them? I refer of course to the design and implementation of the process, not its day-to-day operation.

Is this something you see the community as being involved in at all?

There may be some useful discussions at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Innovation#Possible_partners

There are suggestions at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Innovation#Partnerships

There are suggestions at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Innovation#Partnerships

This does not seem to take account of the discussion at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Tech_project_ideas#Determining_what_projects_get_Tech_time_in_what_order -- was it envisaged that you would involve the community in setting priorities, or is it something that you see as being entirely for the team to do? I mention this because it seems to be the consensus at that discussion, and in the immediately preceding one at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Tech_project_ideas#Process_questions that the community should lead on setting the priorities. However, whichever decision you ome to, it would probably be helpful to at least announce them to the community at Meta rather than leaving it to them to discover by scanning the list of tasks at this board.

There is a page Meta:Innovation where community input might be sought.

Thanks for making the start. As time goes on it would be helpful to say more about who counts as a "core contributor" and to give details about what sort of projects and problems are in scope. The latter definition could be usefully published as soon as convenient at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech_project_ideas where a large backlog of ideas is already piling up. Some communications there would be very encouraging to the community and the more information you can give them the more effectively they will be able to work with you.

I may add that it would be very much appreciated if the team were to introduce themselves at their already existing Meta pages and give the community some indication of when and how they propose to start their engagement,

I would strongly suggest that the team have a portal at Meta," the global community site". A lot of the work of the team is going to be in discussing what the requirements for tools are across the movement and Meta is the natural home for inter-project coordination. The technical discussions of the individual projects may well be more natural at Mediawiki or elsewherew, but to locate the focus of the teams work there would b to suggest that the work of the team is primarily software development, and I suggest that it is not -- it is capturing and prioritising requirements, designing and implementing solutions and taking them through to delivery: those solutions need not even touch the mediawiki base.

There is a list of open data and data science institutions at Meta:Innovation