Shocked

1. I don't see how "All the bureaucracy becomes increasingly irrelevant ..." is a bad thing: surely it is highly desirable to have less bureaucracy and more encyclopedia?
2. That "the "community of users" is not in a position to perform peer review on individual editors" and "Votes for "Senior Editor" will always remain a popularity contest." is true enough, and that is the Achilles heel of the proposal: for it to work, there must be a mechanism to avoid just that vote.
3. It is indeed the intent that senior editors are not experts on the topic, but trusted users committed to the core values "... supposed to guide content discussion to ensure quality work ... [so that we]'re looking at an entirely new and parallel system to the consensus-edit-rewrite process." And surely that is a good thing: where the "consensus-edit-rewrite process" bogs down and produces nothing that is worthy of an encyclopedia then something new is called for. That is common sense. - Brya 05:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And yes, this LiquidThreads is indeed a bad idea, to put it mildly. - Brya 05:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)