"Make an RFC" means coming up with a comprehensive plan for implementing the feature. If the team says "hey we're not sure we've ever seen a plan that addresses our problems," then it's not really their job to figure out how to address those problems, it's the people who actually want the feature. That may be the team, of course, if they think that it is important enough to pursue. There are people who actively do not want it too, and you can't forget about them. The way you've written this sorta suggests that everyone but the team wants this thing, but the team is ignoring them, but that is very much not the case. It's just a contentious issue with tons of people on every possible side. There are more than two!

Also, characterizing it as "no response" is not accurate, as I said, people have not come up with proposals that addressed concerns. It hasn't been ignored. Just not every person has the ability to comment on every thread in every forum.

And there have been some people who have put forward proposals. There's an open RFC I linked downthread about a related problem, "crate name transfer," and there was an RFC that was opened two weeks ago, but the person closed it rather than respond to the team's feedback. That there haven't been successful proposals is different than "there have been no proposals."

Personally, I think that we haven't had movement because it is an incredibly complicated space, with a ton of overlapping desires, and a lot of complexity, and a lot of angry, low-signal discourse. That nobody wants to wade through all of it isn't surprising. I'm glad this blog post was created; it's the exact kind of work that needs to be done to get things moving in a positive direction.