A vote of no confidence over not releasing the name is appropriate.
You seem to miss the point. Although I suppose Mr. Furman does too.
Aside from Tim Peters saying it was him, everyone who was paying attention to the threads that led to the suspension should have known it was him (I can't guess who Antoine Pitrou suspected instead in https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-co... - but maybe that was his subtle way of implying that someone else deserved it instead?) and after the Register article (and perhaps Lunduke's coverage, and that of blog posts such as Chris McDonough's and my own, and I also saw others talking about it on social media), everyone else who cared knew too.
But the Steering Council nevertheless insisted that they were suppressing the name out of some kind of privacy concern, even though the suspension was accompanied by a suspension from the forum that explicitly cites the Steering Council decision. This is public information on Mr. Peters' profile (https://discuss.python.org/u/tim.one/summary) - there's no way around that with the Discourse software. Furthermore, there's simply no way to hide the fact that a normally active discussion participant has suddenly gone radio silent.
In my view, Mr. Peters absolutely does want to publicize his suspension - which is why Lunduke was able to interview him, for example. I rather doubt that the Register did that kind of investigative work, either (even if it should have been easy). Meanwhile, this supposed concern for privacy was completely ignored when the forum moderators decided to slam the door behind myself and Dr. Mertz on our way out, while repeating the Code of Conduct Work Group's ridiculous claims about us.
Mr. Furman is absolutely correct, in any case, about "chilling effect". It's abundantly clear from that post, as well as the one announcing the suspension, and the discussion in the PSF section (https://discuss.python.org/t/pr-disaster-surrounding-recent-...), that nobody dares whisper the name "Tim Peters" - despite the fact that everyone reasonably ought to know who it is anyway. Presumably they fear being sanctioned themselves.
> The problem is that the reasons I have seen given for the suspension are flimsy.
Yes, this is also covered, of course.
Anyway, the people I see disagreeing with Mr. Furman are very much part of the set of people I'd expect to see there. The ideological clique is so well defined that even likely-neurodivergent people like myself can easily sketch it out. The group I have in mind also includes other Steering Council and CoC WG members (although perhaps they'll decide discretion is the better part of valour, or see their views as redundant at this point) - and, among core devs: Nathaniel J. Smith, Victor Stinner and Ned Batchelder (although he became a core dev quite recently and rarely posts much of anything at all). There are others I could think of but I doubt they'd feel strongly enough about it to post.
What has come out of the no-confidence vote? I'm reluctant to visit PSF infrastructure, since the admins have been known to track IP addresses.
If the core developers do not resist this time, I think the PSF/python-dev are officially lost.