This conversation (and the other thread you started) has got really rocky, I know - and I get the feeling that a lot of it comes from the different backgrounds and societies in which folks live. I have had some experience of this and am trying to work through all the assumptions and snarkiness and give the benefit of the doubt...
First, the "non-negotiables" are exactly that - things that are the "bottom line" for you. These are the things that must be present in any relationship setup for things to work for you. Then there are other issues that may be negotiable - things you would like to have. Everybody has their "bottom line" boundaries or rules - and they need to be very aware of them. So my use of the term wasn't to put you down at all, it was just to recognise that reality.
Here is what I suggest - don't just think about the ruleset that you are going to come up with, but think about the process that you are going to use when a new person is interested in joining your relationship dynamic. Will you sit down and invite the new person to present *their* ruleset, maybe before you present yours? The egalistarian way would be to acknowledge that every individual has their own rulesets that deserve to be respected. Now you may be thinking "well, of *course* I would do that" - the problem is, you have been presenting this as "me, me, me" and folks have gone with that, leading to a lot of the negative exchanges on this thread.
I have found that most people that like to posit themselves as "alpha males" usually get maneuvered into being exactly the opposite, usually by manipulation. If you go into this with a more equal tone - of this being a group of individuals, each bringing something to the table - then I think your chances are a lot better. A lot of the words you have been using have led people (including me) to believe that this won't be anything like this.
I also think that re-examining your "I will be the only male directly involved" statement would be worthwhile - it, again, doesn't come across as very egalitarian or open-minded. Why not let things grow as they will with whomsoever fits?
Think about the process of bringing someone new in - how much say do the existing people in the relationship (other than you) get in terms of who gets added, or is this something that only you will decide?
A footnote - many folks when they are thinking about poly come up with their "ideal" poly setup. Usually this is highly impractical or unobtainable. As time passes, and experience with actual polyamory increases, the realisation sets in that something more down-to-earth is going to work far better. A lot of the critique here (while aggressive at times) is often trying to bring that point home to you - that your current goal may need some severe refinement.
Please check out The Birdcage - an open, friendly Polyamory forum for all parts of New York State
"Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf." - Native American Proverb