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.
The charter is not set by ISO. It also has security on it since C11 and was rewritten for C2Y with security also mentioned explicitly. Compiler vendors are active as part of ISO, but the reality is simply that the open-source compilers are also massively underfunded. It is the general maintenance problem that we now have everywhere in IT. One can argue that activities that are not of enough interest should be ramped down, but then the conclusion is that only new things have a right to exist, and everything has to be rewritten all the time because it has to be ramped down the moment industry loses interest and maintenance become a problem. Somehow I doubt this would be an improvement.
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.