> It may be that people are concerned that if the PEP will be presented
> as a decision being made, the opportunity for meaninful input will
> have passed.

That is not the idea of the PEP process. Instead, it works like this:
an enhancement is proposed, and people can discuss it and give feedback.
They can indicate support, or suggest improvements, or indicate
rejection. After some revisions, the PEP is proposed to the BDFL, who
will pronounce. Traditionally, the BDFL has also considered the
community view (unless he has a strong opinion on his own).

> Could you clarify for me: how binding will your PEP be?  ie, will it
> be closer to a recommendation, or will the final PEP be a final
> decision about what will (or will not) happen?

If the PEP process is followed (which I recommend it is), then it will
be a decision. Notice, however, that the PEP can be rejected (and
several PEPs *have* been rejected in the past, including some I wrote).

I'm strongly in favor of this process, even though I'm also opposed
to the likely proposition of the PEP (namely, to use something else
than subversion - else there would not need to be a PEP). It is
*very important* that the PEP provides a complete specification right
from the start, or else discussion will revolve around the open issues,
with no conclusion. So I'd rather have the PEP suggest that we switch
to bzr (say), so that I can vote that down, instead of giving options
in its final form.