I think that's not a bad idea. It leaves the main policy list, wikipedia-l, wide open, and thus insulates us from (some) charges of censorship, etc.
But at the same time, it moderates the forum where the worst flame wars have belonged. Specific grievances against each other for specific edits tend to be our "hottest" topic where a little moderation might do wonders.
1) How will the moderation be set up? If there are several moderators, will the first to approve or reject a post make the decision, or will moderation decisions have to made in consensus, or by majority rule?
2) As for specific moderators, I would object especially to making Larry Sanger a moderator (who has proposed himself). Larry has repeatedly shown himself to resort to insults and ad hominem arguments whenever people start to disagree with him. During his tenure as Wikipedia's editor, he has driven away quite a few contributors because of his inability to accomodate opposing views. His paranoia about "subversion" of NPOV is proof that his mindset hasn't changed. I'm sure I've made his personal "black list" by now, the top position of which is currently occupied by Cunctator. Sanger is exactly the kind of person who can destroy a project like Wikipedia if given too much power and control.
I would, for obvious reasons, also object to Julie, but she isn't likely to do it anyway.
Other than that, I can live with most nominations. I don't trust Ed quite enough to have him the only moderator of a list, but if he was part of a group, that would probably be OK.
Regards,
Erik