I don't see a reason to bother the SC with this level of detail. If they don't like this they can comment on the PR or open a new bpo.

This change looks fine from an editor perspective; would you like to keep it open for some time to allow the Council to comment or are you happy for it to be merged?

A

Let's merge, we can always change it if there's an issue.

Just FYI, @python/pep-editors , its probably a good idea to check for and fix PR titles to ensure they follow the standard PEP N: <desc> format, since that is what gets set as the commit message for the squashed commit, and its very quick and painless to do without bothering the PR author. PR #2352 includes better language for this in the Contributing Guide, making it clearer and more explicit that PR titles (as well as the commit summary lines already discussed) should follow the format, since the former get turned in to the latter (of course, it can be fixed on merge, but better and more reliable to do it before).

I normally do this when merging commits rather than changing the title, but I generally agree (to the extent of labelling most of my infrastructure PRs under PEP 676!)

A