> Note that Ned gave us a permission to get this into 3.6.1.

I may have although I don't remember specifically discussing zipfile.  In any case, I'm willing to consider it.  I think you can make good arguments for and against.  Yes, it could smell like adding a feature but, on the other add, one of the implicit goals of 3.6.0 was to make Path objects supported across the standard library as much as possible, so the lack of support in zipfile (and a few other similar modules) could be viewed as bug.  Also, as far as I can tell, this should be a totally upwards-compatible change except in the presumably unlikely case something is counting on getting an exception when passing a Path object to zipfile.  I say we invoke "practicality beats purity" for this as long as Serhiy is OK with having it cherry-picked to 3.6 and as long as no other core developer here has a strong objection.