What we need is safety improvements in C, we already have enough security exploits in the standard library, strings and arrays, no need for more, without fixing what is broken since 1979 (lint birth year).
I have been contributing with C++ code since 1993, with bounded checked collection types in release code, and compiled managed languages since mid 2000's.
Even Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson themselves, went on with Alef, Limbo and Go.
I have been contributing by reducing my C, and C++ footprint on the planet, and security enforcement at various assignments.
As I said before, insulting volunteers and also misrepresenting what is in the power of an ISO group of experts is bad style IMHO, but I also think you are misguided in thinking that moving away from C towards more complexity is good. My own IT security and sovereignty is more harmed than helped by this trend.
Volunteers follow a charter set up by ISO, The C Standard charter, and definitely WG14 has not had security on C for quite some time.
I recall for the audience, that enable secure programming, and enable functional safety are two of such goals.
Nonetheless, other than some UB improvements has been business as usual.
If it is insulting to point out what isn't being achieved, then so be it.
As for volunteers, my point regarding WG14 and WG21 is that compiler vendors are the ones that should be part of ISO, and if they don't see any value in that, maybe it is about time to ramp down the whole effort, and finally replace them.