Downvoted for the tease aspect - don't do that. Instead, make a post describing the assumptions and premises in concrete terms that lays the foundation for your proposal. Or put the whole thing in an open thread and see what responses you get and what you'd need to expand on before making a top-level post.

not downvoted for the problems I suspect you'll hit. I very much hope you can address them, though:

You say: opinions, the judgment, of the group members, not their personal preferences, but there aren't many individuals who can clearly distinguish among these things. If your mechanism depends on rational participants, it won't work too well for humans.

More importantly, you say that a well-defined group charter is a given. But there is no group with such a thing. Groups tend to have natural-language charters, and members routinely ignore even those.