In older times, boards had moderators, and admins picked out active members as mods based on their performance.
But this model is susceptible to group-think, especially when a topic falls outside the contract. It just happened here during the presidential election that apparently the body of users are sufficiently politically diverse, that intelligent, respectful debate prevailed over mindless up-voting of anything adhering to one specific mindset. It could very well have went in the other direction. It's absolutely no guarantee that you because someone make insightful tech/startup comments, that he also is going to vote down a stupid comment, even if it's in favor of his political POV.
Solving this problem; making sure that a community like HN can stay intelligent, and not be diluted as it gains popularity, I think, is a very big opportunity.
Even when I haven't been involved in running an online community, I've always been a participant in several of them. And yes, some women need to feel "safe" before they will come out of lurkerMode. (Obviously I am not in that set, but I expect the woman who wrote the blog post to which I linked does count herself among them.) For instance, I'm a member of two women-in-IT tech groups (a general one and one specifically for web designers/developers, and believe me, you can't shut them up). The whole notion of women-in-IT and its reflection in online communities isn't going to go away just because some guys (and some women, too) say, "But really, you don't need a separate space."
(As you can probably tell, this is a topic very close to my heart.)
edit: My proposed mechanism for this is that the pattern matching in women's brains is less strict than the pattern matching in men's brains (i.e. women see patterns more easily), which for women blurs the line between interesting and insightful. But I don't actually have any credible evidence to support this, so take it for what it's worth.