Brad,

We've chosen our first deployment to English Wikipedia with care. The reason Flow is only going live on the 2 discussion pages in question (Wikipedia_talk:Wikiproject_Breakfast and Wikipedia_talk:Wikiproject_Hampshire) is that those pages have zero bot activity, and relatively light human traffic, for that matter, skewing largely power user (e.g. no clueless n00bs who need to get smacked around by Cluebot). In my capacity as product owner, I felt completely comfortable deploying a beta trial of experimental software with an incomplete API to two pages where an API wouldn't be critically necessary for vital workflows, with the understanding that the next step after this deployment would be to reach out to bot operators, invite them to test aggressively on a developer test page, and work with them to make the API fulfill their needs. I apologize for not communicating all of this to you explicitly sooner; frankly, it was hard for me to ascertain whether this particular bug was more or less high-priority than your critiques of our use of whitespace. In the future, let's not rely on passive Bugzilla communication around things you feel are serious blockers; let's just talk to each other directly -- I don't bite :)

I understand that your priorities as a platform engineer fall toward making sure our API is robust and well-documented. But please keep in mind that this project also involves significant design and UI components that are just as critical to the success of the overall mission (to replace talk pages entirely and create more universally-usable, stable software tools for all the processes they support). Putting Flow out there on a couple of real discussion spaces is the only way we're going to be able to get actionable feedback on the design and UI side. The sooner we start receiving this kind of feedback, the sooner we can prioritize our work on all the outstanding bugs, enhancements and feature requests, so we get the right features to the right users at the right time.