Let's set a palatable objective

@FT2

Finding the good trade off between basic requirement and giving some slacks to new editors is critical. Time for us to show we are good to find balanced compromise.

I don't think aiming for a 100% basic requirement is realistic, saying aiming 100% of articles meeting the basic requirement is like aiming for 0% unemployment. We should aim for the 90% and above but clearly not 100%.

I do not see any problems with aiming at 100%. Obviously in the stationary regime articles created in the last several days would not meet the baseline quality standards, and the community should make efforts to improve them, but it is still 99.99%, much closer to 100 than 90. And I do not think we should recommend leaving some articles below the baseline forever. The should raise up to the baseline or disappear by means of the deletion process.

Concur.

(Yaroslav's saying the same thing as I have below, but better)

Agree with everyone -- aim high, but accept less. More useful than a "100% target" might be a timeline. Once we lay out a baseline, how quickly can we get to 10%? 20%? And so on.

The idea being taken on board is what counts. The expectation and drive for it as being important.