3. Don't pander to the morons - you know, the ones who see a story about a widely known open source project used by household names, and then shit up the place with, "HURR WAT DIS". Tech news. If you can't Google, you shouldn't be here.
On the other hand, there's a fine line between using technospeak mumbo jumbo language only relevant for some small sliver of some small OSS project where no explanation is given about what the heck the article is about and spoon feeding people a back story on basic physics that they should already know on some NASA project. They don't need to link to a Wikipedia article about what a lifting body is, but on the other hand a HDFOJ nozzle chroming chamber should be explained or at least linked in the submission.
Recent years have submissions that need Googling for acronyms, terms, company names, etc. where it's just simply sloppy submission writing and sloppy submission editing. Those should stop. The submission should be enough for the user to decide to read or not. If it isn't, it sucks, or it's click bait or it's not finished.
Editors should simply press a "we like it but the writing sucks" rejection button that sends feedback to tell people they suck and to get people to actually put effort into the original submission. They'd be able to edit and re-submit. Realistically, the burden is both on editors and submitters, but the submitters seem to be getting an undeserved pass on this issue.
Basically, the editors need a big red pen and smiley face stickers.