To clarify, I weakly think mediawiki is not the right place (By which i mean, I probably wouldn't be actively editing it, but don't let me be the one to stop you). My main objection is that keeping all this info up to date seems like a lot of work, and normal pages on mediawiki don't really benefit from this as far as i can see. I think ideally this would be kept in wikidata, although i guess that depends on what they think of that.
I do think we should keep in mind that these are real people, who do have a certain amount of rights to privacy. However, they are contributing to a public project, so i think keeping track of org charts is super reasonable and not a privacy violation.
I'd worry a bit you are over-indexing a tad on the "formal" org chart. Formal org charts often don't reflect the reality on the ground, in any organization. I think this applies to WMF more than most. The power structure of WMF is complicated with both formal position as well as informal influences. I guess there really isn't an alternative if you want to track things, but you can run into the trap of collecting the data that is (relatively) easy vs the things you actually want to know.
I suppose my hesitancy comes down to - I'm not sure what you aim to achieve with this project, and i don't think it will bring the transparency you desire.
> Does anyone know of a senior person in WMF who has been or would be brave enough to publicly state opposition to converting the team, staff, and product information which is already public from prose into structured data?
I highly doubt anyone at WMF really cares. If anything they would probably be happy about this so they could make sense of their own org chart.