You’re being a bit hyperbolic 
But I agree entirely.
As far as I can tell,[1] the intent is that acceptance would mean that PEP 582 gets rejected, and rejection implies that PEP 582 gets accepted. “This is intended to be an alternative to PEP 582.”
As such, it basically follows the same pattern. The main point of PEP 582 is to choose the name, and the main point here is to choose the name. However, this one doesn’t require any changes in CPython (unlike 582, which needs CPython to change its path calculation code), and so it’s solely about defining the interface between pip and… pip’s users, I guess? Which as Nathaniel points out (and Donald mentioned too), doesn’t require a PEP.
So it feels like it’s solely motivated to get PEP 582 rejected by using process. Which is not an uncommon thing for us to do, and it’s legitimate approach, but as 582 is clearly standards track and this is pretty obviously not (despite the metadata claiming so), I doubt it’ll work.
And I promise I’m being honest here, and not taking offense as the original author of 582. ↩︎