I like this idea and can see how this would make Discourse a natural choice for scientific journals. I can also see how it would draw in more discussion given folks would want to either back the motion, or be critical of it - similar to the Economist here:
Downside would be the natural inertia introduced into the posting process, so I’d see this functionality as being optional and set within category options.
I can see also how more mainstream magazines could use this to crowd source decisions, as in set the peer reviewers to TL3 and approve if approvals exceed X. Same goes for letters and other contributions, even standard online comments - all could be subject to formal member approval. I appreciate we have something similar here in terms of flagging, but this would be the opposite in that certain trust levels could be trusted to peer review posts. Could cut down moderators’ work and make membership more inclusive.
Thanks for posting. You’ve set my mind going again.