> While the intent is not to call for competing proposals, we believe that now is a good time to discuss and propose alternative proposals as well.

If I were a contributor I would read such language as saying "we have no respect for you or your intelligence, so we'll just straight up gaslight you and expect you to accept it."

The dictum can't be read literally - it has to be read like the manipulative, narcissist-speak that it is. And what it's telling you is - get out.

I agree. And the next section is very clear that they want to kill the project.

  > For example, rather than proposing one single concrete JIT implementation,
  > it may make more sense for the PEP to describe a JIT infrastructure that
  > can support multiple implementation strategies.
  > Since many different and promising JIT tracing approaches continue to be proposed,
  > we believe the infrastructure should make it easy to experiment with and evaluate
  > those approaches within CPython rather than be highly coupled with a single strategy.

I think this is uncharitable, it's not like they're inventing new requirements that weren't there before. The PEP process has existed the whole time.

I suspect there were people who had alternative proposals which got implicitly blocked by this 5 year effort. Letting a subgroup run wild without proper process is not good for a project this large.