Tinfoil hats on, what if that "group", who might only actually be an "individual", wants seperate proposals only because it sets each for another scenario for contention.
OR, what if someone wants Schnorr+Taproot blocked like how Jihan Wu wanted Segwit blocked because it disables an exploit/covert-ASIC-boost?
Conspiracy theories aside, it would already be prudent to prepare for that possibility:
Right now I don't think the current amount of engineering interest in Bitcoin is particularly healthy. Many long time contributors, including myself, have essentially stopped contributing for a variety of reasons (including uncertainty around political disruption of deploying even fairly boring new consensus changes, concern that too much bitcoin hashpower is controlled by bitcoin adversarial parties who would attempt to block protocol improvements, etc. on top of more generic factors).
There is also
Pieter Wuille's typically conservative opinion that consensus changes
should be difficult and/or take a long time to implement:
I really don't care when things activate, or end up in use. Changes like this should be hard.