I find this motivation both incorrect and disingenuous.
The Steering Council over the past five years has done plenty of both CoC enforcement and “HR management”. I can attest to both as I have biweekly meetings with the SC as the developer in residence. I also wear the hat of the CoC WG chair.
It’s pretty clear that this proposal is a reaction to Tim’s suspension. It would be more honest to say that in the motivation section. In any case, that situation involved three layers of people: core developers reporting to the COC WG, the COC WG making a recommendation, and the SC making an enforcement decision. If you feel this decision was incorrect, we should definitely discuss, but the first reaction shouldn’t be to remove the SC’s ability to enforce.
It shouldn’t be the first reaction as there were other SC actions over the years in terms of CoC enforcement, which did not create the same pushback. So clearly most actions are uncontroversial.
Finally, this proposal is incomplete without clearly stating who is supposed to be the CoC enforcer if the SC isn’t supposed to do that.