I don’t think MAL has suggested they have not done that. The question is whether they are the correct group to actually be doing that.
I can’t speak for MAL, but my interest in this topic is my reaction to a number of issues over the last 6 months, all of which fall under a “CoC enforcement” umbrella. Tim’s is but one of these (and obviously the one shining the most light on the issue), but I’m not sure it would help the discussion by re-litigating them all here.
I do agree that this proposal needs more detail about how the CoC is managed in the future, but I am not sure a concrete plan needs to be agreed first - general agreement that a process is not working seems a reasonable first step towards a process which does. I look forward to MAL clarifying his thoughts on this.
The reason I’m even thinking about this is due to the communication around some of these controversies. The small amount of communication about these events have been credibly and directly contradicted by those individuals. The lack of followup from the SC is something I find troubling.
Haven’t people been trying to do that? People tried to discuss them but were told there was “information asymmetry”, that information individuals were “personally privy” to and respecting the privacy of impacted individuals mean we can’t know the full story and we should just trust the pcoess. But when other parties shared their side of this asymmetry, directly contradicted the small amount of information which was released and gave their permission to have an open discussion, the response has been either silence or more stonewalling.
So yes, we should continue to discuss this - but in my opinion, the onus is now on the SC to directly address some of the responses made by these individuals.
For these reasons I agree that the status quo is not serving the Python community. The SC doesn’t seem willing to directly engage with this, so proposals which look to address this are going to attract attention when they are the only proposal on the table.
Mark