I think that's a little too simplistic. I definitely agree that "we can't show you the evidence of why we made this decision but trust us" isn't going to instill confidence in the community, but it's not like the steering council is some unrelated board of executives. They're all core developers, theoretically chosen for their dedication and contributions to Python as a whole, and it seems their granted power has made them anxious about showing favoritism among the most seasoned at the expense of upholding the community guidelines that keep the Python community a positive and welcoming place.

I think a flawed decision was made, or at least the way it was presented was flawed, and that should be considered for the next election. Maybe the council does need to be totally overhauled, that's a valid position. But this is their work, too, and imply they have no skin in the game is disingenuous.

Interesting perspective. It implies that:

1. The value of their policy work is significantly below the technical community's contributions value
2. There is perceived status to be gained by climbing this particular social ladder.

I neither agree or disagree fully, but I believe there is value in good governance of large and diverse projects.

Whether their governance is good is what this whole kerfuffle is all about.