I would propose an alternative: instead of gatekeeping what gets into General, we should have a policy for removing packages that do no belong there.
The discussion above implicitly assumes that once packages are in General, they stay there for good. This is problematic for packages that are substandard (for whatever reason), were once useful but are abandoned, superseded, etc. So focusing on “what gets into General” is understandable, because the cost of mistakes is high, good names are used up for good.
We should complement the entry requirements with a simple process for removing packages from General, so that we can fix mistakes. It should allow the original maintainers to respond and get their act together, with a generous time window if they demonstrate that they are available. The process should be flexible and involve judgement, but generally packages that have no activity, major unfixed issues, started out as an experiment but got abandoned, and have no dependents would be good candidates.
The packages should automatically be moved to another registry so that they remain installable for those who need them. Potentially they would need to be renamed if there are name clashes in that registry (that will happen in the long run).