Two topics from the articles that came to mind...
On the first article there is mention of the special role of the deacon.
"Therefore, deacons often minister to widows, orphans, shut-ins, the poor, the sick, the disabled, the imprisoned, the undereducated, and others with special needs."
While I agree that this is the historical role of the deacon, I wonder about how much it reverberates with the diaconate in the New World as it is exercised today. I know some deacons who volunteer in important roles and do valuable work for their parishes and for the wider world, but most I know serve a liturgical role and little else beyond a possible administrative role in a parish council setting. Said another way, The above is repeated a lot, but at a personal level if I send a deacon to a sick person's home will my people say "Glory be! Thanks for coming, deacon!" or will they say, "What? Father couldn't be bothered to come?"
The American church doesn't have a uniform, pan-jurisdictional understanding of what our deacons should be doing; we don't even have uniformity on whether they should preach on Sundays, distribute the Eucharist, or hold administrative positions in the Church. What's the solution? Will a permanent diaconate (instead of an "I'm just waiting for the bishop to find a place for me" system) that doesn't serve as a way station for the presbyterate help? Will paying them change things? Will an episcopal/synodal ukase on the expanded role of the deacon prompt more integration of the deacon into the service of the parish? I don't know. None of them have been tried with any regularity.
On the second article, I'd just like to point out the section about the possibility of a return of the female deacon (with augmented responsibilities).
"Before female deacons could be appointed, it would be essential that a permanent diaconate be already established within a diocese (and preferably within the specific parish) so that there was a clear understanding among all parties that women deacons would not become priests. In the early Church, female deacons were involved in the preparation of women for baptism and in the exercise of pastoral care within the congregation. Although there is little or no historical precedent for the liturgical service of female deacons there is no reason to suppose that such service would be inappropriate today. Many women within the Church who do not necessarily believe they themselves are called to become deacons would be greatly supported by the Church’s vision for the role of women in the contemporary Church."
That the Church never had a liturgical role for the female diaconate that parallels that of the male deacon is sufficient reason (to my thinking) to be able to say "that such service would be inappropriate today." Their role had a specific purpose for a specific time. Regardless, we need to - as a Church - come together on what the role of the deacon is before we start creating new ones for women. Many people want to be more "inclusive" to Orthodox women and so this idea gets a lot of print space. I hesitate to say that the female diaconate is the proper next step.