If what you want is a selfish reason to help me out, then consider this: would you rather I wrote up whatever I was able to think of on my own, and have it posted under the label 'Objectivist Commonwealth', or would you prefer to have an opportunity to have your own views presented and promoted in a way and in a setting that you otherwise wouldn't have access to?
The existing article, which is what was in place before I joined the OA project, is at http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-topic/45cfd0563d016 . That existing article is what I have to take as a base to revise - nearly the whole thing is up for grabs, as long as it's within OA canon (described at http://orionsarm.com/xcms.php?r=oa-page&page=gen_canon ), and taking into account that I have to convince the other OA members to agree to the changes.
If you want a particular item to comment on, then how about this: the setting assumes the existence of 'transapients', sometimes called 'posthumans', which are capable of thinking useful thoughts that a human brain is literally incapable of thinking. (There are various levels of such transapients, the higher levels able to think in ways that the lower ones can't.) The page describing the setting's basic rules about any conflict between different levels is at http://www.orionsarm.com/xcms.php?r=oa-page&page_id=33 , but can generally be summed up as being about as lopsided as a group of well-prepared wolves (or amoebas, depending on the levels involved) trying to fight a group of well-prepared humans.
From what I understand of Objectivism's views of vegetarianism, as mentioned in http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Vegetarianism.html , those beings who are not 'rational' do not have rights, and thus an Objectivist does not have to worry about violating their non-existent rights. In OA, one of the interpretations consistent with the evidence is that a transapient is so much smarter than an average human that they effectively undergo a mental 'phase change', and such a being might consider a human to have precisely as many rights as a human considers a cow to have - that is, none. Going by this interpretation, Objectivist ethics would primarily deal with interactions between beings of the same 'toposophic' level, with no consideration given to 'lower' beings other than how they benefit the 'higher' beings, such as as property, or left in wild reserves, or even as parts of the higher beings' minds.
The other interpretation I can work out is that Objectivist ethics apply relatively equally to /all/ beings of human-level intelligence or higher, and the complications come from the inequalities of power between human-level intelligences and beings of astronomically greater intellect and power.
Which interpretation do you feel is more consistent with actual real-world Objectivism?