Yes, though I think this exposes some scaling problems with wiki consensus when there are a ton of people interested and huge outside media interest as well. Straw polls aren't votes, but they function best as non-votes when there's, say, fewer than 50, maybe 100 people weighing in. Then the approach is something like: 1) call a straw poll; 2) people indicate their support or opposition and why, not just a "vote"; 3) eyeball the opinions to see if there's clear consensus for or against, and what the main reasons people have pro/con are; 4) try to revise the proposal to take into account the main opinions expressed in the straw poll; 5) iterate until either consensus, or you fall back on finally having a "real" vote among a few distilled options.
That all works remarkably less well when there are hundreds of people weighing in.
I was referring to this graph and the premise that it supports.
Also, Jimbo has very little to do with the running of the English Wikipedia. He stepped down as a leader of it because of how often his actions were sharply criticized by the community that he was out of touch with. Just because you co-founded something 10 years ago does not make you an expert on it.
The graph shows how many people support/oppose this concept. And finding that out was Jimmy's aim here. Not to make a decision based on the resulting figures.
