OK, that question probably does not make a lot of sense on its own, so let me at least explain the last part. With "friendliness/quality divide" I mean the currently apparently opposing goals of being welcoming to newcomers vs. maintaining a high quality standard in questions. There's been a post in the SO blog about this that illustrates the issue well.
The Negative Approach
Maintaining a high quality standard is achieved - more or less - by rejecting bad (often just "not yet good") quality questions. However, this currently works in a negative way: A question is posted in all its glory, and at that point it's a "complete" question; people can see and answer it.
Then another user comes along and says why it's not good enough. We can sugarcoat it as much as we want, ultimately the message is "your question sucks because X". It might very well be closed for that reason. At that point that feels more like demoting a question that was already there.
"Your question sucks because you didn't do the research", "Your question sucks because you don't have a verifiable example", you all know these reasons. They are valid reasons and changing those is not the solution to this problem. IMHO, a user (and often a high-rep on, at that) telling another user "what you did sucks" is what causes friction.
The Positive Approach
I imagine a "positive" approach as one where a question starts out as a "prototype" (or however you want to call it). The point is, it's not yet ready, not yet a "complete" question - and there's a checklist of steps that have to be verified in order for it to get promoted to a "complete" question. A "complete" question can then be answered.
We already have a "quality checklist". These could be "checked" by other users. Imagine a question where it's unclear what they are asking. A user might see this feedback:
- appropriate amount of research - YES
- has a verifiable example - NO, BUT DOES NOT NEED ONE
- has a clear, answerable question - (no votes)
"Your question sucks because X" becomes "Just do X and you're there!" - but most importantly, quality isn't sacrificed to achieve that.
I also don't see any issue with letting somebody who checked these boxes answer the question. It seems that this way, it's not really less convenient to answer a question - it might even be an improvement.
Obviously, this is not a 100% worked out system yet, but I see a potential to reconcile friendliness and quality without sacrificing parts of either. Of course, I might be forgetting things. For example, I didn't go into the technical side at all.
You are hereby cordially invited to tell me why my idea sucks.
(Or what you like about it, if you're so inclined.)