Even if we put aside all the process issues here, and someone stood for SC election based on their opposition to this; by the time they’d be elected, 3.14 would be out and it would be too late to change it (without long deprecation cycles etc.)
Easy to say it’s not relevant if you get to at the same time impose your preferred solution.
At least we have some rationale now, even though I don’t think it stands up to scrutiny. It feels similar in spirit to the presidential signing statements that became en vogue in the US in recent decades – with the stroke of a pen, an “I interpret this law thusly!”, and suddenly some aspect changes at the last moment.
The SC is the highest authority, sure, but this feels like a bad trade-off in terms of precedent, process and erosion of trust. For what, one more or less top-level module names? It’s a pity…
Anyway, I guess we’ll all move on, but I find the arguments post facto for this decision to be really flimsy, and not something that should be left to stand unopposed, if only in the interest of decreasing the likelihood of reoccurrence of a similar situation down the line.