I think it’s more a case that a lot of people have found that discussions about such potentially unpleasant foundational issues tend to be both unproductive and emotionally draining, and simply aren’t worth getting into. The topics themselves are worth discussing, but it doesn’t seem that this environment (for whatever reason) is the right way of doing so. You could say that it’s because this environment is “unpleasant” and “toxic”, but I think that’s unfair, and potentially contributes to the sort of atmosphere we’d like to avoid. Rather, it’s just that people have divergent views, and a text-based online forum isn’t the best place for nuance and expressing willingness to discuss while remaining strongly opposed to another person’s views.
Furthermore, in my experience (and I’ll repeat, this is only my experience) the times when this tendency is at its worst is when people try to represent an uncomfortable or controversial topic as “neutral” or “just about the facts”. People’s feelings are always involved, because pretty much everyone is a volunteer and has invested a certain level of their own identity in the community. Trying to keep to the facts in that situation just makes people with an emotional investment feel shut out.
To give a specific example, I’m heavily involved in the packaging community, and have seen it grow from small beginnings to the point it’s at now, where it’s struggling under the weight of its own popularity. As a result, I’m painfully aware of all the good work being done, and how the individuals involved are doing their best under what are frankly near-impossible conditions[1]. And remember - these are volunteers, there’s nothing but their own interest and integrity stopping them from just walking away. The questions you ask are not unreasonable, and the concerns you imply are also fair. However, you also imply[2], in those same questions, a potential “hidden agenda”. Given how long I’ve worked with the PyPI staff[3], it’s hard for me not to respond to your questions personally, in defense of my colleagues.
The only solution that I can see is to back away from offering opinions, and let the people who have volunteered to act as a formal voice here comment. It’s hard to do that when the formal responses are criticised for being insufficient, or unacceptable, but that just pushes us back into the same loop. At some point, the answer genuinely is just “sorry, but that’s all there is”.
Maybe all of this means that the Python community needs some sort of fundamental change to survive in what is an increasingly corporate and contractually dominated world. Python is essential to so many businesses nowadays that maybe a purely volunteer basis simply can’t work any more. I hope that’s not true - I feel that the volunteer nature of the Python community is a key part of what makes it what it is - but regardless, that’s a huge question that we’re unlikely to be able to answer here.