Prelude: I think your argument makes sense, there are just some things that I’m not clear about.
Is there agreement on this? From the constitution, the SC was tasked with “Management of Official Resources”, part of which is to “Create and enforce appropriate rules for Nix project spaces, including issuing Nix-wide bans, which will affect voter eligibility.”. It is also tasked to “Establish and manage teams to delegate authority on specific areas”, but doesn’t specifically enumerate tasks which should or must be delegated.
Furthermore, the constitution explicitly creates mechanism to revoke delegation:
The SC has the authority to make decisions within the scope of its responsibilities; the restrictions on this authority are all explicitly listed in this constitution. The SC may make a decision to revoke delegation of a specific part of authority, if necessary — even if the authority in question has been with a certain team since before the current constitution.
On decision-making: “the SC remains responsible if the delegated team fails to reach a decision.”
Taken together, these seem at odds with the notion that the main purpose of the SC was to create new systems of governance. Taking only the document as written, the stated purpose of the SC seems to be to fulfill specific organization objectives, as empowered by electoral mandate, and delegation is a means through which it can adhere to the community value to “distribute decisionmaking widely”.
Lest people read too much into this: there is a difference between procedurally-enabled and conducive-to-community-trust. In particular, it sounds like the SC came to a decision for a relatively hands-off approach to the moderation team early in their term. Though they left the door open for SC intervention “in cases of significant malfeasance, misconduct, or dereliction of duty”, it seems that there was failure to establish processes that would allow them to demonstrate that such had happened.
I don’t think there necessarily has to be consensus regarding reason before a body can act on consensus regarding outcome. In the same way, I don’t think it’s easy to express a single cohesive reason for the results of any election, but still generally believe in elections.
Again, there are gradations to this - I think it’s entirely reasonable to conclude that given their stated policy towards the moderation team, the SC should have convened on such a decision with a process that was aimed at explicit enumeration of reasons before proceeding on a decision through vote.