While part of me gets and likes the idea, another part of me wonders why we claim we do not need more admins, but then do want to give options to certain people to call votes; that implies there are enough problems in servers without admins to do that.
If we were to do this, we'd have to be careful about the selection process. Just because someone is a good and nice player does not mean they have the qualities to be able to really tell when a vote is appropriate. There should probably be a thread explaining to the trusted when they can or cannot start a vote for something.
As for the arrangements, I would say 1 hour length for mute/gag/ban votes. Then what we need to establish is how many votes are needed for it to be passed. This doesn't even have to be a very high number: if someone is playing music in a server, sometimes I will check how many people do not want it, and if only 1 or 2 people say they don't want him to play music then I can easily tell them to just mute him, but if the amount of people who say they want him to stop is higher than 3 I mute the guy, because then it gets harder to get all the players who don't want it to just mute him. What this boils down to is that IMO, not so many votes would be needed for a micspammer to get muted. However I do think they need to be active votes, not people just mashing '1'. Which is why I think the 'Yes' option should be under key 2 (or 5 if we go for 4 and 5, etc.).
But anyways, to get back to the amount of votes needed, that's a bit hard to establish because if you make it a low percentage so that not many votes are needed on full servers, you need to take into account that in a server with only 5 people, 1 vote could be enough to get to 20 per cent, while the other 3 may have liked the music, for example.
I dunno, it's pretty difficult and controversial. I've introduced the topics of question at hand, now I'll let you debate about it.