[..]
Maybe you should make a proper change proposal to do this, instead of
just being sarcastic about the work other people are doing?
I'm not 100% sure am I understand you correctly because I'm not sure is it still something not clear or you are trying to push me on some exact rails :P
1st ver of the answer:
Sorry I'm engineer not bureaucrat.
If someone do not understand what just has been written this is not my problem (maybe it is brutal claim but it is only truth).
Yes, I'm not native English speaker and my English still is a bit clunky.
2nd:
I understand that Fedora has own bureaucracy and it (en)forces some technical decisions by policies but all that decision should be strict technical decision and whole bureaucracy should be done post factum after discussion -> POC -> discussion of the POC results.
Writing policies is generally to cut off any misunderstanding on scaling that decisions on other non-initial areas or to provide clear justification on all not obvious "why that way?" question, and of course keep entropy of everything on lowest possible level.
Nevertheless now we are not on any of those stages.
Simple I don't like when strict technical decisions are done because they have been (en)forced by unproven political/strategical decisions. and what IMO cracks in case of python says me that currently used policies at least needs some remake.
Someone made the decision about python methodologies and because in the past that person or people had the best set of facts in own brains they should speak first to at least confirm that some cracks are not only imaginary. With agreement that currently used methodologies something is wrong ("errare humanum est perseverare diabolicum") only IMO is possible to start new games on some rules/policies.
In cases like this it is really possible to do a lot only discussing current state and some new possible states (by discussion I understand conversation in which sides are using facts .. only).
If it is not obvious .. I'm already assuming that what I've described could be wrong/bollocks/BS because some already tested (in combat) cases on areas which I don't know/I'm not aware.
Despite that entry/top assumption what just sparked in my head looks consistent and sound.
I'm not trying as well to challenge personally anyone.
No this is purely technical conversation and even if some wordings looks harsh it is not absolutely the case.
kloczek