@terry.reedy

> Gabriel, I believe I addressed most your concerns in my previous post.

I don't think so (see below) but we don't have to agree in everything. :)

> Are you are suggesting that we judge proposals _by the proposer_, rather than the substance of the proposal?

Definitely not. It really doesn't matter who has made a proposal if _it makes sense_. However, that doesn't matter either when a proposal doesn't make sense or it's ill-advised or not justified.

> who made the proposal and _why_

I don't care about who but the _why_ is the matter here as I put it in point 1. of my previous post. IMO one has to be clear and explicit about his/her intentions/justifications i.e. if one does something for clarity than he or she should declare it :)

> There seems to be a misperception that we have collectively changed how we judge doc proposals.  Should we 'announce' that we proceed as we have been?

When I use your word: PSF and core developers should address the misperception. To be honest with you, IMO the "Python officials" handled these issues very badly and unprofessionally. Let me clarify. I'm not the only one who has perceived this BPO and V. Stinner's master/slave change (or some "gender neutralizations" of the documentation in the past) as PC/SJW ergo politically/ideologically motivated. So, what is perceived to be the main issue is the motivation. The way these were handled brings quite an _ambiguous_ impression and it's not clear if PSF or core developers are willing to proceed in this PC/SJW (ergo political/ideological) direction or what exactly is their stance. I read the BPOs and GH PRs and also some other articles and discussions where this ambiguity created a lot of confusion. There were statements in those articles and discussions like "GvR were asked to decide this question and he agrees with PC/SJW direction..." Therefore, I don't know how to interpret "that we proceed as we have been" as IMO no clear statement has been made so far.

tl;dr

To conclude: I think we still aren't at the same page. However, I'm not sure if it makes sense to continue in this debate _at the moment_ at least for me. The amount of absurdity, nonsense*  and misconduct, _I've perceived_ while discussing these two BPOs, made me disappointed and discouraged me for any further participation on trying to make Python better at least for now. I want to give it some time and come back to this with a "cool(er) head".

To be specific: merging unjustified politically or ideologically motivated changes without discussion, not addressing factual arguments, silencing and censoring discussions**, sending people to Twitter (even if they don't have an account), using Code of Conduct as a tool***, making "feeling-based" arguments aren't characteristics of rational discourse or open community. I can't imagine what comes next but after all these things, I'm (rather) pessimistic.

* e.g. "cleaning/censoring" language based on its "potential offensiveness" is a nonsense as any language _is_ potentially offensive.
** "no further discussion is needed" (or even welcomed) without further context or clarification _can be perceived_ as arrogant as saying "Shut up! I know it better!"
*** To be clear, I don't mean your warning under issue34694. I can completely agree that I shouldn't/mustn't make sarcastic comments. IMO CoC is a written-down common sense. If it needs to be used as an argument (i.e. a tool) in a discussion, it's a sign of deeper issues or that something went to far.