After reading the long post, let me regurgitate what I could comprehend: previous criteria of upvoting and downvoting would be reduced to encourage an otherwise a passive section of the community. To counter any form of dubious activity, tools the moderators use have been modified taking feedback from the moderators but they admit these won't be enough to deter any form of malice. To deter nonsensical downvotes, one has to mandatorily leave a comment (not publicly). Mostly it would be the revamped mod tools that would be used to avert any mischievous activities, at least that is what I could make out of it.
Now my take: I am pretty much conservative when it comes to lower what is already a low bar, as also noted by Nick Cox. It seems to be an over-ambitious endeavor which generates enough discomfiture in me.
This is not the place and time to argue whether those bars were and are still apt (they are). Even though apparently there have been preparations for over three months or so equipping the mods with new/modified tools (I am not aware of the specifics), chances are implementation of this venture would open a deluge of sock puppet accounts, and yes, the idea that registered account is a must would deter sock puppetry is quite shaky.
Here moderators do an excellent job in maintaining the site day in day out. The reviewers of the community also volunteer in clearing the review queue and detecting spam/bogus posts etc. Over all these, they would impose additional burden to gauge for any malicious activities thanks to the experimentation. I am not saying it would be impossible for the moderators to dole out the duty but what is the endgame here?
There is then the downvote. There is a reason why one needs to gain enough confidence in the community (in the form of the reputation of 125) before getting the privilege. Again, it would be insolent to think all new users are rogue who would go on a downvoting rampage or reactionary spree. But even a fraction of such activities would be primitive to the quality that site maintains. Yes, the system can detect serial voting but again due to the implementation, it would put extra pressure. Rep 1 users to be precise are novice and are not aware of the norms here and for all practical purposes, they don't pay tok much heed to the help page either. The existing bars provide them time to acclimatize with the ecosystem. Many come here due to urgency - they are in hurry to get solutions and whenever they feel they are not getting any useful substance, they would resort to downvoting. Maybe they won't involve in a rapid spree but the downvote was only due to that someone elicited clarification - that is only one speculative instance.
For the sake of argument, let's say, we agree in participating. What is the long term goal? Okay, this is not specific to this site and would be more generic. Over the years, we can say we have developed a good community which cherish and maintain a certain standard of repository of posts. If these minimum bars are lifted, would it alleviate the quality in a significant way? As a student of this subject, I must not throw my biased presumption that it wouldn't; if any experimentation indicates then, so be it. But think about it: any potential good user won't get deterred by the existing bars. They contribute, interact constructively, gradually gain reputations and subsequently become a part of the community.
I appreciate the efforts they are undertaking to assess how a certain number of users would add value to the site. But the thing is it seems to me quite half-baked. It is not good to be sclerotic but for seeking more contribution from a certain new users by removing the rational barriers is a no-no. I think SO's participation would be disastrous. Compared to SO, CV is way less intense. But that doesn't mean it should be the ground for such experimentation, at least not in the proposed form, imo.