Fred, do you want to opine on this?

In some cases, like heapq.py, the personal touch is an essential and beautiful part of the presentation and is a cherished part of Python.  In other cases, it seems unnecessary or a little off-putting, so perhaps a few changes are warranted.

Personally, I've grown to really dislike the incessant stream of proposals to make broad sweeping trivial changes across the code or documentation to fix made-up problems (ones not reported or cared about by actual users).  In particular, I worry about sending some new dev on a mission to rewrite documentation that was written by domain experts (Alex Martelli reported that copy-editors "wreaked havoc" on one of his books just prior to publication by subtly changing the meaning or correctness of his prose while applying grammar rules and minor style edits -- I wish to avoid the same for us).

Also, I place high value on text written by Guido and think we lose something every time someone wants to rewrite it to fit their personal tastes and views of the language.  The tastes and views of module authors are more important are easily lost in style edits (especially those that change point of view, mood, or theme of presentation).

Another thought is that there should be different general rules for different sections.  The standard library docs tend to be more formal.  The language reference tends to be even more formal ("for language lawyers"). The tutorial tends to be personable.  The how-to guides are often have a personal touch and are the only places where we attribute authorship back individuals (actual by-lines at the top of the file).

[Cheryl Sabella]
> Would it be OK for me to tackle this?
You could, but I would really like to get you involved in more substantive work that involves thinking about real issues and real code.  IMO, this project isn't worthy of you time and is not on the critical path to your stated goals.   That said, feel free to volunteer for anything that interests you.