Yes: having a “steering” group for Haskell would probably make more sense if there was more than one active Haskell implementation.
…yes, but:
…and with the second Rust compiler possibly arriving as soon as next year, the arcane features of most other general-purpose programming languages may very well be up for review…including Haskell. That the last attempt at a new Haskell Report failed just means another approach is needed.
It looks like the reign of the BDFL is almost over, so it will once again probably be a group entrusted with the task of “steering” Haskell in the future. If so, and Haskell still only has one active implementation, having its implementors (past or present) in that group must surely raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest: “parents never have ugly babies” :-D
On a practical note: if this meant implementors were excluded, it would probably make for a very small “steering” group and help to counter the appearance of “redundant bureaucracy”.
But I’m no sociologist - I too am an implementor, and all of the above should be considered from that viewpoint…