The rules are the rules. They want to follow the rules. If they don't follow the rules, they'll be making an exception. What's the point on having rules if you make exceptions?
While I agree with Mozilla's decision, the reason that there are rules is so that it isn't arbitrary. Who is to say who is trustworthy? What if Mozilla wants to charge a fee or else they will remove someone?
Those circumstances would easily fall under the purpose they serve.
Rules reduce expense, leaving resources to deal with exceptional cases. Applying rules to exceptional cases makes a mockery of both the rules and the organization applying them.
It requires attention by the people applying the rules to recognize the facts, but paying attention is the reason to have people in the loop. Any machine can be corrupted.
Rules exist for the purpose they serve, functions they allow to be easier and cheaper. Rules are not made so that rules have been made.