At least one SC member is in favor of one of the alternative indentation schemes that have been proposed. For example

match:
    <expr>
case <pattern>:
    <block>
...
[else:
    <block>]

A new variant was also proposed:

match:
    with <expr>
case <pattern>:
<etc.>

I can't say that I like the with <expr> variant, and other SC members don't either. But I could live with the first variant, which can also be written with match and <expr> on the same line:

match: <expr>
case <pattern>:
<etc.>

UPDATE: In any case, if we were to adopt this we should also add an else: clause -- there is no longer ambiguity about its placement, and at least one SC member prefers it over case _:.