Is the omission of a racial +2 to wisdom intentional? [closed]

In the 5th edition of Dungeons and Dragons, the selection of a race determines one or more bonuses to a primary attribute. For example, humans get +1 to all six attributes, while a wood elf gets +2 to Dexterity and a +1 Wisdom.

It is interesting to note that no race or racial subtype in the Players Handbook and the Dungeon Master Guide provide a +2 to Wisdom. Arguably, this could mean that Clerics and other divine spell casters are at a racial disadvantage to, say, a wizard, since it is possible to roll a wizard of a race that provides +2 to Intelligence. In fact, Wisdom is the only primary attribute for which no race or racial subtype provides a +2 bonus.

My question is this: Is there any official explanation from Wizards of the Coast explaining this omission? Is it deliberate? Was it merely an oversight, meant to be rectified with custom classes or future supplements? Is there an explanation from the publisher that would justify the complete absence of races with exceptional wisdom?

I would like, of course, to avoid subjective exploration of the topic. My interest is strictly in whether this omission was deliberate, or whether it has received any official explanation from the publisher.

I find it interesting that the newly-released Elemental Evil Players Companion introduces four new races, even one that offers the enviable +2 STR/+1 CON combination, and yet there remains no official race granting a native +2 WIS.

The greatest evidence in favor of the answer “no” is that it does not appear that the designers have ever explicitly said otherwise, while the greatest evidence in favor of “yes” is that two NPC races with +2 WIS are denied the same bonus as PCs.

I find it interesting, and will wait it out a little longer pending updates from WotC. I rather expect that this question will be answered the moment a racial counterexample has been published.

Do arbitrary/Byzantine failures include omission failures and timing failures?

Distributed Systems 5ed by Coulouris says on p68

2.4.2 Failure Models

Omission Failures

Arbitrary Failures The term arbitrary or Byzantine failure is used to describe the worst possible failure semantics, in which any type of error may occur. For example, a process may set wrong values in its data items, or it may return a wrong value in response to an invocation.

Timing Failures

Are arbitrary/Byzantine failures arbitrary? (Sounds yes to me.)

Do arbitrary/Byzantine failures include omission failures and timing failures? (I guess not. Otherwise, why does it describe omission failures and timing failures separately?)