Most of the problems found in Quotiel are found here. Points 1-2 advocate for decentralization but the Volunteer community has no links to Teams (affiliates). This responds to the reality that we have nowadays, but should not be our objective in an ambitious 2030 plan.
If we ignore the volunteers (who aren't linked to any structure in this model), we find an inverted pyramid. Global Council (WMF Board) supervises Basic Support System (WMF), WMF grows with Back offices (regional? see Quotiel critic) who have paid coaches to serve affiliates, now renamed as teams. Teams are not linked to volunteers who create the projects.
The inverted pyramid is the opposite to the decentralization that has been demanded. Besides, feedback from community demanded less dependence of WMF and in this model the 'Teams' (affiliates) have a new superstructure they depend.
Global Council is participated by volunteers but also by the members of the offices and teams who depend of the same Global Council. So, the Global Council can influence into the bodies who (partially) elect them.
Are teams (now Affiliates) independent of what nowadays is WMF?
Where do the coaches appear from? Are they independent? who pays them, Back Office, Global Council?
Once again, this model is not flexible, neither Quotiel. We have worries about the election system and how Representative is this hierarchical model.