Having now caught up with the thread, I'm a bit confused. Wasn't this what you & Nigel were discussing before the 2 of you had your falling out & you 'left'? (Just up the thread a bit - 'So what are we talking about here' or summat.)
When he first brought the subject up (and he may well regret it!) Nigel seemed to want a pretty much informal 'organisation' the name of which he & anyone else could use when writing to 'the powers that be'. Anything else seemed to be somwhat of a bonus.
You seem to see it as a more structured (and probably more effective) group or groups of activists keeping an eye out for 'trouble' and mobilising whenever there is a threat to a site. As you say, there are a lot of sites under threat.
As I see it, the problem with your view of it ES is that it'll be a lot of work, as you said yourself. People will have to commit on an ongoing and time consuming basis. YES, of course that is the most effective way of trying to do something about the issues, but NOT if you haven't got the people with the commitment.
George Brigantes is a (brilliant) exception, I feel, rather than a rule. Maybe you are too. I could be wrong, but I reckon most people that have shown an interest so far see it more as an 'as and when' thing and won't be willing or perhaps able to commit the time and energy to the kind of thing you re suggesting.
I for one would be more than happy to get involved, but it can only ever be on an 'as and when' basis. I have domestic commitments and personal arrangements that are difficult to predict etc, meaning that I wouldn't ever want to have people relying on me for this kind of enterprise.
And I suspect that applies to quite a few other people.
If you can get the people together to form the kind of group you are talking about, then BRILLIANT. And I will SUPPORT your group to the hilt, in a practical way whenever I can!!!
In the meantime however, all I could really sign up to personally would be something more like Nigel's original idea (if I understand it). A kind of loose informal 'collective', the name of which could act as a 'banner' for anyone who fancied trying to do something about a site under threat.
Members could perhaps provide some sharing of expertise, such as editing, graphics, writing, ideas etc on an informal basis, just when convenient, and without anyone relying too heavily on their commitment.
I totally agree that what this would achieve may be limited compared to a more active, commited and organised group, but it'd be better than nothing.