Great. Because that was the larger goal. Recipes was just a demonstration of the idea. Albeit a demonstration that took about three times as long as expected!
There was a lot of interested talk about this in the threads mentioned in the first paragraph of the OP:
But there were no real decisions. I’ve been putting off working on a recipe edition for far too long. In coming back to it, I thought I could use it to put up a target for discussion on the whole idea. But I jumped the gun on an announcement when I was finally fairly satisfied with this edition itself. I really would like to have at least two more sample editions before I try to come up with another target: a community editions platform of some sort.
I have a number of vague ideas about it, and I don’t mind being the one to put in a stake in the ground. It’s so much easier to have these discussions when they sound more like, “Why don’t we do this instead of that?” than like, “Well, we could try any of these options.” When this approach is done well, the final product could end up entirely unlike or nearly identical to the original approach, but everyone has been able to have their say.
I would hope that it would happen here in Talk, maybe with a dedicated channel.
Good questions! Next, question, please? 
I’m thinking of discussions here in Talk, ideally using some Discourse voting mechanism. A discussion goes on for a while, and someone says “Call the question”, and we post a poll here. If we get at least n votes, with at least p percent voting yes, the edition / change/ whatever is accepted. For instance, @SnapSam asks about a potential new edition. Discussion ensues. Changes are proposed, some are accepted by Sam, some rejected, changes are made, and as new suggestions seem to peter out, @Springer says, “Call the question”, and @Thomas_Chuffart, @vilc, @TiddlyTitch , and I and ten more people all like @Springer’s post, enough to end the debate. And you, @simon, or one of the other Editions moderators – what, weren’t you volunteering to be a moderator, Simon? Sorry you’ve been drafted – you post a poll and a week later we check it for the thresholds. Enough voters? Check! A high enough percent of “yes” votes? Check! The edition is chosen for inclusion, and added to our fancy-dancy new tool.
Agreed. I was thinking of TODO as a likely candidate for an edition. I have used Projectify, but as with any such tools, I seem to have abandoned it after a short period. 
I think we’d need to have its creator or a regular user work on such an edition.
No.
God, no!
I needed a break from this work, but expect to get back to it in the next few days. My goal was to do much simpler proofs of concept for two other editions; I didn’t know what editions yet. And then I thought there would be just barely enough content to hang our discussion on.
I would like to stay involved, and if we have some Community Editions moderators, I would be happy to serve as one of them.
But, while I’m reasonably good at building things, I’m not so great at maintaining them!
I don’t know. How well does it meet the Criteria? 
A community edition:
- must serve a useful and relatively common purpose.
- should have a clear, narrow scope and a complexity ceiling — roughly 1,000 words of explanation should suffice to understand the whole thing.
- should work out of the box without configuration.
- should be self-documenting from within.
- should ship with illustrative sample content — ideally as a separate JSON bundle so the empty and populated artifacts are both first-class.
- should make common customizations easy — palette-based theming, user-facing strings in well-named tiddlers, no hardcoded UI strings or colors.
- should showcase idiomatic, modern TiddlyWiki — educational as well as functional; modern techniques preferred but not pushed.
- should be maintainable — prefer core TW and established community plugins over custom wikitext.
- should follow TW namespace conventions — keep implementation details someplace like
$:/community/recipes/....
- should be deployment-agnostic — single-file HTML, but nothing that breaks under Node or a server.
Or what should we be looking to relax or tighten up in this criteria?
