Ben Finney writes:
Definitely agreed, and I'm not implying otherwise.
There is a distinction to be drawn:
Aside from Paul's disclaimer, this is way too high a bar. Nick tried to express that in his post, but I doubt it's possible to successfully communicate what Nick means in a mailing list post because it's a very subtle distinction that requires a lot of "what could he be thinking" effort from each reader to convey.
This expression is improperly restrictive. Contributors object to it because it's objectively objectionable, and easy to express. But they also don't want to wade through arbitrary amounts of feedback which is often context-free and/or actually misguided. They don't want to explain a point multiple times to casual readers who miss it, or spend the inordinate amount of effort required to compose a post that covers all the context needed in terms that all the casual readers can parse. All that is much harder to explain in terms which will result in well-informed, to-the-point feedback, and without sounding like "I know what I'm doing so STFU" (the recent "to python-dev from python-dev" post is an example of the kind of wording that can be misinterpreted this way).
So people object to "micro-management" as a summary of frustration, but the actual sematics are complex and subtle.