A compelling reason for doing this is giving people the ability to do other people favors in a very neatly-packaged way, something like this:

I understand what you're saying, but your last two sentences lost me. I suggested an edit that might clarify what you're trying to express without changing the intent of your post

The person can then just review the edit, and apply it or change it slightly if they agree. On meta, where it's much more about voice, that's pretty ideal. Unfortunately the way you've proposed it is just not technically feasible. I'll go into why.

###The voices, man, I keep hearing 'em!

Every suggested edit generates an inbox notification. On sites like Ask Ubuntu, Ask Different, Stack Overflow and others where meta sees significantly more participation than other sites, this would create a lot of noise. The alternative is not generating inbox notifications for child meta suggested edits, which (unfortunately, for the most part) means they'd go unseen or approved in a queue by others, and might not be something the author would have approved as suggested. Meta is a town hall; that's why you need privileges to edit directly on the main site to edit here, one of the chief reasons anyway.

###Killed by slow, and do you even meta?

On sites that don't have very active child meta sites, participation is much lower. Turning on work queues here would just mean creating a backlog that moderators would feel obliged to clean out from time to time. It just wouldn't work as you intend it to work. Showing them in the main site queue alleviates that to some extent, but that's shown to everyone regardless of meta participation. Queues where you accomplish small units of work are already a big ask on the main site, I really don't want to mix them. As meta sites tend to take on their own culture over time, I don't want non-participants here reviewing suggested edits because the system asked them to.

###I am a mean, horrible person.

But with all of that said, turning our engine sort of upside down for discussion here on meta worked well enough. But, it's missing stuff. There aren't any polls, people can get down-voted for asking for support, curating is sort of second class and opportunistic and using it as a bug tracker could be made much more ideal.

I hope to take on a project this year that takes a serious look at child meta sites, and how they could perhaps diverge a bit in terms of features from the main sites. This is something I'd like to see possible, just ... better, not bolted on.

I'm declining it as proposed, but that doesn't make it a bad idea. In fact it's a good one (heck, I up-voted it), but in need of some groundwork that I really want to do.

A compelling reason for doing this is giving people the ability to do other people favors in a very neatly-packaged way, something like this:

I understand what you're saying, but your last two sentences lost me. I suggested an edit that might clarify what you're trying to express without changing the intent of your post

The person can then just review the edit, and apply it or change it slightly if they agree. On meta, where it's much more about voice, that's pretty ideal. Unfortunately the way you've proposed it is just not technically feasible. I'll go into why.

The voices, man, I keep hearing 'em!

Every suggested edit generates an inbox notification. On sites like Ask Ubuntu, Ask Different, Stack Overflow and others where meta sees significantly more participation than other sites, this would create a lot of noise. The alternative is not generating inbox notifications for child meta suggested edits, which (unfortunately, for the most part) means they'd go unseen or approved in a queue by others, and might not be something the author would have approved as suggested. Meta is a town hall; that's why you need privileges to edit directly on the main site to edit here, one of the chief reasons anyway.

Killed by slow, and do you even meta?

On sites that don't have very active child meta sites, participation is much lower. Turning on work queues here would just mean creating a backlog that moderators would feel obliged to clean out from time to time. It just wouldn't work as you intend it to work. Showing them in the main site queue alleviates that to some extent, but that's shown to everyone regardless of meta participation. Queues where you accomplish small units of work are already a big ask on the main site, I really don't want to mix them. As meta sites tend to take on their own culture over time, I don't want non-participants here reviewing suggested edits because the system asked them to.

I am a mean, horrible person.

But with all of that said, turning our engine sort of upside down for discussion here on meta worked well enough. But, it's missing stuff. There aren't any polls, people can get down-voted for asking for support, curating is sort of second class and opportunistic and using it as a bug tracker could be made much more ideal.

I hope to take on a project this year that takes a serious look at child meta sites, and how they could perhaps diverge a bit in terms of features from the main sites. This is something I'd like to see possible, just ... better, not bolted on.

I'm declining it as proposed, but that doesn't make it a bad idea. In fact it's a good one (heck, I up-voted it), but in need of some groundwork that I really want to do.