It's never been about what "we want" (or at least it shouldn't be).  An "orthodox Rome" will bring us back to before the apostasy, before Vatican II.  

Can we be sure that an "orthodox Rome" will do that?
I'm not sure, and that's my point. The Pre-Vatican II church was not entirely kind to Fr. Feeney. It might not be so kind to us.
I expect an "orthodox Rome" would invite traditionists back, but under some conditions that may not be easy to submit to. Additionally, a lot of trads, and trad priests, have become used to a operating without the structures and limitations that were normal before Vatican II. That "freedom" may be difficult to give up. I'm not excluding the SSPX in that; they imitate some structures but certainly not all, such as structures that (pre-V2) limited what the superiors could do.
When Jansenism was condemned, some Jansenists did their own thing and eventually formed the Old Catholic Church. I have this sad thought that a segment of traditionalists are walking in the same direction. And an "orthodox Rome' might even precipitate that.

I started this thread and I think it's time for a refocus. I was interested in knowing what it would take for you and the hierarchy to be in "full communion" with each other. Thank you MMagdala for a detailed list. That's what I had in mind. I also have several issues I would expect to be addressed.

Nevertheless, an orthodox Rome might not do everything just as we want. What would and wouldn't be critical?

I have met some traditionalist Catholics who focus on certain issues to the point that that I wondered if they would accept a Rome that didn't exactly fit their flavor of orthodoxy.

Thanks for your your considerate reply, Stanley.  FYI, I did consider my 25 items to be critical (essential) to restoration, given that they all reflect the world of Catholicism prior to the chaotic destruction of V2 and aftermath, but I understand what you're saying about how some focus only on certain issues as a "test" of whether Rome is orthodox enough for them.  
I agree with your point, and 2Vermont might have said it, too, that the priorities would be set by an orthodox Rome, who would lead, not follow, a lay agenda.  It's not about any single person's "favorites" but rather a recognition of authentic Catholicism as it was professed before the Council.  In what manner that would come about is not the business of lay people to direct or dictate, but my point was that the restoration cannot exclude what distinguishes the permanent deposit of faith from the novelty that followed.  Hence, my list of what a true Catholic should expect to be addressed somehow.