I don't think the issue of how typing is making its way intot he community is particular relevant to this thread, but I was directly asked a question, so I'll answer it:

I don't know exactly where the impression is coming from that typing is a best practice, but it's certainly creeping into example code, etc. So folks will see examples of code that have nothing to do with typing, and probably have no need for it, and there will be type annotations. Many (most?) folks learn from examples more than targeted instruction, so as those examples grow, so will the impression that it's an inherent part of Python.

David Mertz' experience is similar to mine as an instructor.

Another anecdotal example: I've been teaching an intro to Python class for years, based on the same material, that we try to keep up to date. But typing is not yet included. However, about a year ago, one of the other instructors (that had not previously developed materials for the class) added a new example / exercise to the "intro to classes" lesson. And that example had type annotations. I ended up removing them, as I thought it could be pretty confusing to students to see them for the first time with no explanation (would they think it was something specific to classes?). I wish I'd discussed it with the other instructor, I don't know why that was done -- was it standard practice in their workplace? Seemed like a best practice? I have no idea.

Another observation is that more and more library authors are being asked to add type annotations -- maybe that IS a best practice for widely used libraries, but that's one more piece of data.

Also: I know this isn't intentional, but Guido has an enormous influence on the Python community -- so I suspect that the fact that he's taken an active role in developing static typing has influenced how it's being  perceived.

I do think this is a topic for the community to grapple with, but not really a Python-dev responsibility.

-CHB