Victor and Yuri make excellent points. My take on it is that the appropriateness of a decision at a physical meeting depends on the history of the issue and global effects of the decision.
As one example, we’ve had PEPs that have been thoroughly discussed and maybe had one or two outstanding details that needed hashing out. The high bandwidth physical meeting can resolve those issues, and I have no problem with the BDFL (-delegate, or equivalent) being satisfied and pronouncing at the meeting. OTOH, I’m much less comfortable with a newer idea, an experiment, or more controversial decision being made in a forum that excludes the voice of those not able to travel to the meeting. The Discourse experiment decision is one that falls into this category, even though I think it’s been a good experiment.
I don’t think decisions at physical meetings should be banned, but I do think we need to be especially mindful of the participation and concern of the wider Python community.
That said, I think it will make a lot of sense for the SC to meet virtually to discuss topics in that kind of high bandwidth setting. Pronouncements coming out of such meetings should generally follow the same guidelines.