Meta is an odd beast. Admittedly, I still don't understand parts of it. Typically, requests the community can respond to get the required attention. They get decided upon, and acted upon. Requests related to tags, chat events, policy deciding and so on.
I don't exactly know or ever wondered how the psychological process works, but it seems that people just put a "decided" or "consensus" stamp on the thread. All is well, until . . .
Nothing of the sort happens in this meta, to my information. Except marginal cases that have nothing to do with the site's mission, all other requests get the attention they deserve, and the discussion and input they seek, but there's never final action.
If you need examples, there are countless out there. Just take a look at some of mine. Proposals asking for blacklisting, removing, or curating a tag, with a bunch of upvotes and comments, sometimes an answer, but never acted upon. That has been sucking the soul of charity off me. The only force that drives me to write this, and the only force that has persuaded me countless times to end the tagging haft-khan once and for all, only to hesitate.
To remedy this, we need some arbitration, at least. Modesty seems to get in the way of getting things done. The moderators don't step in since they don't see themselves in the place to decide where they feel there is no community consensus. Truth is, no meta question on any site gets agreed upon by every single member that could've participated. Thus, we may need to define thresholds and let them guide us where we can't decide ourselves. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.
What I'm basically asking is for is a process that involves a minimum threshold of number of votes, score, comments, answers, or an arbitrary metric taking all these into account. When a post reaches the requirements, it's put in a queue to be acted upon, older posts first. (To be clear, that's not going to be something built-in, but a community-wiki meta post with a list of things that link to things, and one that is curated by the community)
Usually I never opt in for or endorse any system that introduces even more complication than to what SE offers, but this, or anything similar, is what this meta needs most right now.
What are your thoughts on this? What does it take to persuade ourselves to take action rather than letting meta posts rot and sending the meta users, the ones willing to help and participate, back home disappointed? Do we even need an active and acting meta, and do we need to act on things, or are those just election talk?
Please share your ideas in the comments and answers below.