Which would limit most "outsider" proposals mostly to library features, which would be a good thing I guess.
This has been my biggest problem, and I say this as someone who has been on and off developing C++ for over 2 decades.
At the same time, it’s a safe bet to say that C++ will still be around in another 2 decades.
[1] C++ has only 4 implementations these days, Clang, EDG, GCC, and MSVC; everything keeping up with the standard is a fork of one of these projects.
Not that WG21 won't produce further ones, just like has happened with other ecosystems of similar age, who cares about Fortran 2023, or COBOL 2023 revisions, despite their critical use in many research projects, or companies infrastructure.
It is already good enough (minus the security issues), for the existing infrastructure that relies on C++, and most of the new stuff isn't helping.
In the early ISO days, the people sent to ISO were employees from compiler vendors, and existing practice was the key factor into adding stuff to the standard.
Eventually, comitee dynamics took place, and nowadays most of the contributors to WG21, and to lesser extent WG14 (which still keeps more close to the existing practice spirit), you have hundreds of contributors wanting to leave their historical mark on the ISO standard, withough having written a single line of compiler code, validating their proposal, which they are able to fight trough the whole voting process, and then leave the compiler vendors sorting out the mess how to implement their beloved feature.
Those of us that really like C++, are also kind of lost on how things turned out this way.