As an anecdote, I considered running this year, but decided not to for a few reasons, none of which were concerns about the SC’s influence. One was just that I expect Rust for CPython to take up a lot of my time next year, and given the SC is a significant time investment, I didn’t want to over-commit. I agree with Brett that the time investment is probably a significant reason folks are reluctant to nominate themselves. Another reason I didn’t run this year is that I expect all of the candidates to do a good job of addressing one of my largest concerns over the next year: making the PEP process less arduous. You mention a critical piece of this I think:
I agree the current process could certainly be improved and changing how the SC interacts with PEP authors and PEP discussions is needed. And based on a discussion with the current SC members at office hours a few weeks ago and other private discussions, I feel confident that the current candidates will tackle this problem in the coming year.
It’s telling that none of the “losing” candidates from last year is running again this year, apart from Thomas.
For at least one of those, there’s also “learned helplessness” in play, I think it’s worth considering that the “what’s the use of even trying?” that’s increasingly infected the PEP process may be spreading to other areas. While it won’t really matter, it’s largely to counter that possibility that I gave my “5 star” vote to the one fresh face (who is also well qualified - it’s not at all a “protest vote”).