I am deeply disappointed to see that the RFCSC has chosen to blindly continue business as usual for RFC 175 and 176.
RFC 175 I consider disingenuous in nature, because –as already discussed in more detail elsewhere– the effective consequences of its proposal are not aligned with the words used to describe it. Additionally, its manifesto in the appendix is inflammatory and not appropriate for the RFC process (or any community interaction, generally).
RFC 176 does not even attempt to properly follow the process, it is an obvious knee-jerk reaction and not worthy of further discussion in that state.
I don’t think that continuing with the usual procedure would be a constructive use of our time, nor that it would meaningfully fix the problems which need to be addressed. Both should be closed or marked as draft, and the authors should rework the RFCs before reopening.