I want to respond to the "fundamental challenges on Meta" named in the blog post:

The problem

 

We have identified these fundamental challenges with Meta as we’ve grown and accrued community debt:

 

1. It’s hard to capture structured feedback on Meta. There are now so many conversations that we aren’t often able to participate. As a result, users end up not feeling heard and a lot of confusion (including some misinformation) is generated.

It's hard to take this problem statement seriously when your first survey in "The Loop" has exactly two questions asking for feedback:

What do you like best about using Stack Overflow?

 

What do you find most frustrating or unappealing about using Stack Overflow?

How exactly is that "more structured"?

How will users "end up feeling heard" better by using a black box to drop their feedback into?

2. On Meta, there are discussions, some that go on for a long time without a clear answer.

Why is that a challenge? Unless you're trying to use Meta as an issue tracker. But that was never its purpose.

3. Meta tends to exclude people that aren’t super immersed in the Stack Overflow/Stack Exchange culture.

I believe that is true of almost any feedback mechanism. Why do you imagine you'll get a greater response rate from some other mechanism, or that it will give you more valuable information than reading what your most engaged, community-oriented readers have to say?

4. Meta requests don’t integrate with any existing ticketing system, so our Community Managers need to prioritize the best they can and answer the threads deemed most important at the time.

This seems a somewhat valid concern, but the votes on Meta posts should give you at least some indication of importance and community interest in problems raised.

I want to respond to the "fundamental challenges on Meta" named in the blog post:

The problem

We have identified these fundamental challenges with Meta as we’ve grown and accrued community debt:

1. It’s hard to capture structured feedback on Meta. There are now so many conversations that we aren’t often able to participate. As a result, users end up not feeling heard and a lot of confusion (including some misinformation) is generated.

It's hard to take this problem statement seriously when your first survey in "The Loop" has exactly two questions asking for feedback:

What do you like best about using Stack Overflow?

What do you find most frustrating or unappealing about using Stack Overflow?

How exactly is that "more structured"?

How will users "end up feeling heard" better by using a black box to drop their feedback into?

2. On Meta, there are discussions, some that go on for a long time without a clear answer.

Why is that a challenge? Unless you're trying to use Meta as an issue tracker. But that was never its purpose.

3. Meta tends to exclude people that aren’t super immersed in the Stack Overflow/Stack Exchange culture.

I believe that is true of almost any feedback mechanism. Why do you imagine you'll get a greater response rate from some other mechanism, or that it will give you more valuable information than reading what your most engaged, community-oriented readers have to say?

4. Meta requests don’t integrate with any existing ticketing system, so our Community Managers need to prioritize the best they can and answer the threads deemed most important at the time.

This seems a somewhat valid concern, but the votes on Meta posts should give you at least some indication of importance and community interest in problems raised.