Following thought comes to my mind: Long and recurring discussions come up on complex (among others) topics. A long and recurring discussion on those topics only arises if more than one party is involved and everybody involved can contribute meaningful input - whether this is questions or answers. So you have a bunch of 'experts' discussing a topic, but here's the problem: Among those experts, who is in the position to stand above everybody else and moderates this thing? Given all participants know each other well and can sort this out, you don't have a problem. But we're talking about the internet. Who is the one sorting out what is meaningful content? What contributes to the discussion? What's necessary and what's bloated information? How to structure prior discussion? All of this has proper potential for a heated discussion on its own. But in the end someone has to have the authority.
I try to abstract the problem (as I understand it) and I see an attempt in finding a perfect system. There might be a system that does justice in treating the content of the discussion well (retrospectively) - but the human aspect of discussions ?. This reminds me of an open source project. If the participants want to treat the discussion seriously, they'd have to do serious research of what has happened until now. No room for a lighthearted quick thought, because it probably has been said earlier on. Someone would rightfully point that out, but would that lead to a healthy atmosphere and exchange of thought for all potential people? Surely in some cases and on some topics and with the right people. But in general, I'm not so sure...