I will note that, apart from the implied link to pyproject.toml, any one of these would have been acceptable to me as a compromise candidate replacing both of PEPs 722 and 723. The dealbreaker for me was, and still is, the suggestion that what is agreed here must end up in pyproject.toml.
I really appreciated the care @ofek took to ensure that PEP 723 did not dictate any specific choice for pyproject.toml - the PEP simply says that if pyproject.toml ever gains a [run] section, it must contain 2 particular keys with specific semantics. A proposal that doesn’t conform to that can simply choose a name other than [run] and everything’s good.
I’m disappointed that there’s still a push to make a decision on pyproject.toml without doing due dilligence on the question and actually addressing the various concerns raised in the “projects not meant to produce a wheel” thread. I understand that it’s triggered by the combination of Brett’s conditional acceptance and an eagerness to have PEP 723 implemented (for scripts) but I don’t think it’s healthy for the ecosystem. It’s certainly not what I want to happen when I say that I favour incremental improvements.
@brettcannon - Just in case I’m misunderstanding your intention here, can you clarify? Is this poll solely about changing the syntax of PEP 723, or is your expectation that you (or someone else) will be submitting a PEP for adding the poll result to pyproject.toml, citing this poll as support for the idea?