Of course this is a practice that is usually associated with the publication of monographs and articles. Given the ability to automate the tracking of submissions and the document management associated with them, should be no problem to adopt such feedback practices to conferences and colloquia. This would be one venue to accomodate interesting but incomplete scholarship. It is a nice way of recognizing effort without inadvertantly censoring or burying intellectual work. Of course, a submitter could request that the fate of the submission not become public knowledge.
Quality remains uncompromised.
Access to feedback is widened. Willard poses, as always, a very interesting question regarding the evaluation of conference submissions. Yet when I attend sessions, I think I am more interested in what sorts of ideas are generated rather than in acquiring some finished knowledge. I don't see the problem. Don't tell the person what to write, but help the person understand what needs to be done to improve the argument.