You're still centralizing a power. It would probably be better to have some rule that's based on quorum and consensus than specifically elected people. E.g. at least some percentage (say 60%) of active contributors must weigh in and some percentage of those (perhaps a simple majority) must agree that a violation took place.
Granted, that's still open to abuse if the quorum requirements are small enough (how small would depend on the quantity of abusers), but I feel it's more in spirit than centralizing the power into a sub-group.
I will further grant that it's likely that, in any group, only a subset will care enough about these things to police them, so the point may be moot.
Granted, that's still open to abuse if the quorum requirements are small enough (how small would depend on the quantity of abusers), but I feel it's more in spirit than centralizing the power into a sub-group.
I will further grant that it's likely that, in any group, only a subset will care enough about these things to police them, so the point may be moot.