Fair point, but I’d view it as (1) allowing a streamlined discussion process that doesn’t need a formal PEP, and (2) allowing non-controversial changes to be made without requiring the mechanism for “big” changes.
In this case, I don’t think the change is non-controversial, so we need some process. I’m happy if it’s not ultimately a PEP, but I think writing the proposal up in “PEP form” and presenting it here is far from wasted effort. I also think we need someone to make the final judgement on whether the proposal should be accepted. Everything else is just admin, agreed, and we should ditch it if it doesn’t help. Although where should we store the final version of the document? It will have useful background and explanation that certainly wasn’t in the original PR. IMO, writing the conclusions of the discussion up is valuable - expecting people to trawl Discourse for information isn’t ideal…
If anyone else wants to nominate themselves as “final arbiter” on the proposal (I’ll avoid using the term BDFL-delegate, if we want to avoid PEP-related terminology) I’d be happy with that. I don’t want to give the appearance of using my authority to promote a personal agenda. Or are you suggesting that we don’t need a decision maker at all, and as long as anyone with commit rights on the pypa/packaging.python.org repository (which, by the way, doesn’t include me ) agrees with the change, it can be applied?
BTW, if everyone but me thinks the proposal is non-controversial, that’s fine - a consensus of “it’s fine, let’s just approve it and move on” is perfectly valid