Yeah, personally I'm a bit worried about this too. The proposed CoC does contain provisions to try to prevent misusing it, but whether those are strong enough remains to be seen --- and it'll depend a good deal on the judgment of the committee members. We have a provision in there for periodic review of the CoC, and it'll be important to adjust it if we see abuses.
Having the CoC link actually link to information about the Core Team, in addition to simply using the term, would be good. There is also no description of how a complaint against a committee member would be resolved (just that one should contact individual members instead of using the group list) nor is there mention of whether the committee or individual core team members should be addressed should the complaint be against a core team member.
Related, there is no public mention of how a core team members' membership could be revoked - just that invitations are done by existing members.
Tangential, are there plans to increase number of core team members. IIRC its actually decreased by one between the time of the first proposal of the CoC and now.
In general, the PG community has a long track record of mostly civil interactions, so I'm optimistic that that will continue.
+1
As an outside observer I am a bit curious that the Core Team wouldn't be able to handle accepting the, likely low volume, of complaints directly; is the management of a committee necessary
? It seems likely more time will be spent administering the annual member selection process than the members will spend performing those duties. Having an administrative aide seems worthwhile - which is basically where things stand today and could be continued on with until such time as a specific need for a committee is felt.
