Shouldn't people who were not involved in the individual creation
processes at least get two weeks to review the final work
to make up their mind before entering a voting period ?
It seems like we're completely skipping the review phase of the
regular PEP process and going straight from PEP writing to
a vote:


The period of Oct 8 (date when PEPs were due) up until Nov 15 (before voting start) was meant as the "review" period, and this was stated in my original email about timeline:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2018-August/005960.html

I did propose that there was a period where no more changes to PEP should be made. 

Copy pasting text from that email

*Oct 1 - Nov 15: Review period.*
All core developers will review the PEPs, and ask any questions to the PEP
author. This timeline allows for enough time for all core devs to carefully
review each PEPs, and for authors to respond.
 
*Review phase 1: Oct 1- Nov 1:* Allow changes and tweaks to the proposed
PEPs.
I figured people will have questions and will need to clarify the PEPs
during this period. But if we want the PEP to be final by Oct 1, that's
fine by me. maybe allow typo fixes still.
 
*Review phase 2: Nov 1 00:00:00 UTC*: No more changes to the above PEPs.
No more tweaks to these PEPs. PRs to these PEPs should be rejected.
This is the final chance to carefully review all governance PEPs, and
formulate your decisions.
 
*Nov 15 00:00:00 UTC: Voting for new governance model starts, and will go
for 2 weeks*
Send reminders for folks to vote.

But I guess some people think that whole fixed timeline thing was bad idea, so I didn't go and enforce all of this (also I took a break from life and reduced responsibilities).