I understand issues and welcome any discussions. For that matter I do not rush to conclusions. I am not expert in C and Python as the rest of the folks on this list
but I am pretty good with Python itself. I just suggested naming to be as simple as possible for all relevant API's including full descriptions in the code base regarding stable, semi-stable, unstable and so forth. I do that in my projects with Python libraries I write ...
Sorry for intruding and possibly  clouding the email thread...

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022, 4:39 AM Stephen J. Turnbull <stephenjturnbull@gmail.com> wrote:
Sasha Kacanski writes:

 > Why you don't simplify with api A,B,C and  forth and then follows
 > explanation ofr what is stable, unstable, semi... So forth....

This is exactly what they're hammering out.  It's not easy for several
reasons, chief of which is that in each case the boundary is a matter
of opinion as to the balance among what is most convenient for the
developers of Python itself, the developers of separately distributed
C/C++ modules, and for existing modules that were developed before the
divisions were set and would need to either be changed or to risk
API incompatibility with future versions of Python.  The nomenclature
also matters, as individual programmers have various ideas about the
meaning of terms like "stable", and we want as much agreement as
possible that the "stable API" is "stable enough", and so on.

If you have specific ideas about which APIs belong where, feel free to
bring them forward.  But this is not a process that should be rushed
nor would anyone benefit from pushing it forward more quickly.