This is adapted (read: mostly stolen) from Pinniped's post here.

Basically what I've done is expanded in places, considered Ben's comments, and added a few things that I prefer.

Editorial Processes:

• 
  Step 1: Someone writes an entry.

• 
  Step 2: Writer submits entry to unified Writing Workshop (name to be determined?).¹

• 
  Step 3: Comments, improvement, workshopping. Focus on the content and style, rather than trivialities.

• 
  Step 4: A Curator may nominate it for inclusion.

• 
  Step 5: Another Curator seconds the nomination.

• 
  Step 6: Once an entry is seconded and approved by an Editor for adhering to the writing guidelines, it gains an "Approved" status. At this point, Curators receive permission to edit the piece. Curators will edit entries that need to be improved in terms of readability, though they will not receive an "Edited by" credit. Approved entries may be kept from immediate front-page recognition if they are not totally readable. Once a Curator or two have given the thumbs up, such an entry should be moved to the Front Page. Some Approved Entries (hopefully most of them) will not require an intermediate Curator stage, and can move immediately to the Front Page.

• 
  Step 7: After an entry is "Approved" a "Like" button (or something similar) will appear on the entry. Entries receiving a certain threshold of "Likes" or a proportion of "Acclaim" will move to a Quality Assurance board.

• 
  Step 8: The Quality Assurance Board will privately decide which entries to admit to the "Showcase". The Quality Assurance Board will have a maximum number of entries per week that it may admit, though this is in no way a minimum.

• 
  Step 9: The best entries will be put in a Showcase. Showcase entries will be given prominent Front Page status.

• 
  Step 10: Only site Editors will have Editing permissions for Showcase entries.

This will result in a three-tiered guide. It's something like institutionalizing the Entry of the Month. The first tier is unapproved entries, which anyone can make. They will be the same as current unedited entries. Only their author may edit them.

The second tier is Approved Entries. These should still meet a high standard of quality. Curators and Editors may edit Approved Entries. Approved entries have an Acclaim system, which leads to the QA system. There should be some recognition for Approved Entries holding high levels of Acclaim (or a large number of Likes) in terms of All-Time entries and of recent Approved Entries.

The third tier is the Showcase. It will be the very best entries that h2g2 has to offer... something we can all be proud to be associated with. The only individuals with editing rights to the Showcase are Editors. Before the transition to the new h2g2, we will choose an initial Showcase Starter Kit.

Volunteer Schemes:

Curators: Curators will be trusted edited guide volunteers, who will take over the roles of the current EG volunteers. They will have a number of important permissions. They will be allowed to edit the Front Page. Curators will have the ability to nominate and second an entry for approval. They can also nominate and second an entry for removal from the Writing Workshop. They can oversee classification and taxonomy. They will also be able to edit "Approved" entries, though the "Sub-Edit" stage will disappear.

We need to stop enforcing a particular style and format on our authors, and recognize that format and style are part of what makes an entry unique and interesting. Conformity is not what h2g2 is about. Far too much effort has been expended on conforming entries to the h2g2/BBC prototype. Hopefully a new set of Writing Guidelines will help this also.

Curators will be chosen from a wide-ranging group of trusted Edited Guide veterans. There must be a level of selectivity in that we cannot give the job to someone who has not been around for a while, because there's potential for vandalism with a Curator's editing permissions.

Curators are in charge of keeping the guide up-to-date. The changes they make, especially after publication, should be fairly obvious and uncontroversial, such as typos. If there are significant changes, the author should be given the chance to express his or her disapproval. I have no problem with a Curator taking an interest in an entry, and working with the writer to make it more readable, but I don't think this should be an institutionalized mechanism. It should be the exception, rather than the rule – and it can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

I also believe that Curators should be allowed to retire, but retain their statuses (badge/permissions/etc) and contribute as they are able to. Some Curators will focus on Scouting/commenting, and some will focus on editing approved entries. Some Curators will do quite a lot of volunteer work; others will do none. There will be no quotas for Curators in terms of editing or nominating/seconding entries. Curator status is a signal of trust that the community places in the volunteer, it is not an obligation. An individual can only lose Curator status if he or she abuses it in some way.

The name "Curator" seems best to me, because it evokes an image of h2g2 as a museum. However, I also like the idea of considering this group of volunteers to be "Assistant Editors". Something like Editorial Deputy perhaps (because it shortens to ED). I'm not picky about names.

Curators should ensure the continuation of the site's writing life force. They should do things like sponsor contests, recruit new writers, and try to befriend new writers.

AViators: I believe that Community Artists, AViators and Photographers should be combined together. They do very different things, but somehow it makes sense to me. I do not know enough about these roles to be able to comment effectively, but I believe it would be good for them to be able to collaborate and help account for as many entries as possible in terms of illustration and A/V content. Keep in mind we won't have access to the BBC picture library for our entries.

ACEs: Retain the ACEs, but also incorporate the "Guru" role. Think of ACEs in terms of "Assistant Community Editors". They should have a wider responsibility than just welcoming newbies. They should put together community events, sponsor competitions, etc. Perhaps they could do moderation as well.

Editors: These will be elected community members, who are in charge of overseeing the process, ensuring that entries meet the Writing Guidelines, and generally making things run smoothly. If it sounds like their role is undefined, that is because they will pick up the considerable amount of work outside of the roles and abilities of other community members. There should probably be two or three of them.

Quality Assurance Board: Elected by the community. Should have an odd number, probably three or five individuals. These should be trusted Edited Guide writers, volunteers and readers, who have demonstrated a commitment to excellence. They can work out among themselves how to select entries for the Showcase. They will have no minimal number of entries to put into the Showcase, but a maximum of about one per week (at least to start with). This shouldn't really be too onerous of a job, I should think, because not very many entries will reach a threshold of consideration for the Showcase.

The QA name could probably be better, but this is what we called it in the UG, and it worked very well for us. I don't think "Editorial Board" is quite right, because it implies some sort of direction. I also don't think this needs to be a lofty-sounding title.