In reply to @tomodachi94:matrix.org
I agree. I'm mostly bringing this up to establish precedent about the scope of the RFC process (as a practical example, instead of a theoretical example) in relation to the SC and Constitution

FWIW the intention (as an author of said doc) is that teams with authority should also have the SC as approvers of the teams charter. Not as micromanagement - but as "making sure that people are actually well equipped to do the thing they want to do, and that it is in line with the rest of the constitution and policies", then staying out of the way.

In reply to @tomodachi94:matrix.org
The constitution reads:

The SC[...] has the following responsibilities:
...
Creation and Management of Teams:
* Establish and manage teams to delegate authority on specific areas
* Delegate authority to long-term teams and committees , allowing them to evolve policies as needed
...

Was creating the categorization team in correspondence with the RFC but presumably without SC approval constitutional?

This seems fine, partially because it was approved before the SC and constitution existed (double check?). But regardless, the SC should not be a bottleneck for people to self organize and get things done. We do have a responsibility to do it when specific authority is required to be delegated. Or if a conflict exists, some contention.

Regarding the cultural norms; I like to revisit the values:

Distribute decisionmaking widely

We are a synthesis of varied but overlapping communities. We rely on distributed approaches: asynchronous communication, clear ownership, deep-dive taskforces, and local decisionmaking.

So, (my personal opinion only, not SC) is that if people are motivated to help make Nixpkgs categorization better, get organized, and establish a taskforce to do so, then I love it and support it.