One of the constant source of grief over at MO is that although the close/reopen works perfectly well in non-controversial settings, it's really poorly designed for controversial settings and leads to much unhappiness. The system is strongly biased towards controversial questions being closed at least once, and given people's emotional responses to question-closing this is a bad bias. There are lots of ways one might imagine dealing with this (tweaking how many votes to close you need, allowing moderators to cast normal votes to close/reopen, allowing pre-emptive votes to stay open), and at MO we're seriously discussing various complicated systems to implement them ourselves. Several of these have been suggested here at meta.SO (e.g.) and the SE team's point of view seems to be that they don't see any problem here and don't intend to fix it (scroll all the way down to the bottom, the reply has a lot of downvotes).
My question isn't to reopen the discussion on these particular points, but rather to ask whether SE2.0 sites will be allowed to customize the way that voting to close/reopen works if the community on that site wants to change how it works or whether say the unpopular decision not to implement pre-emptive voting to re-open is final on all SE2.0 sites no matter what the people on that site want.
I think this is an important question because one of the main advantages of sticking SE2.0 over moving to something like OQSA is that SE has a group of excellent programmers who can implement requests. But if we're going to have to implement pre-emptive voting to re-open ourselves (or worse yet, if we won't be allowed to implement it at all because we're no longer allowed access to enough of the backend, or because the SE 2.0 people want consistency across sites) then SE2.0 sounds much less appealing.