Then I'm strongly -1 on it. Happy? :)
And In case it's not clear why I said that, btw: It's not mere pedantry.
Good to see you understood yourself why that mail wasn't so good.
By restating your proposal in those terms, you make it far broader than a simple textual transformation. Imagine if you'd said it like this:
"Okay, let's be pedantic. As well as my other proposals, I'm also requiring that you be able to use 'a+b' as a variable name."
That is most definitely not a simple proposal. And that means it should be discussed as a much much broader change: disconnecting keyword arguments from variable names. That should NOT just slide through as part of a separate change.
Imagine if I said something other totally irrelevant and that is bigger change indeed. But I didn't. I suggested not a change of CPython or PyPy or IronPython but a few sentences in a PEP. I also didn't suggest that it be snuck into the same PEP as my proposed syntax changes. I agree that would be bad. It should obviously be a separate PEP.
You could try first discussing the idea before requiring that I first state the legalese minutiae in exactly the right way before you even discuss the idea itself.
We're pretty far away from a PEP at this stage anyway so hold your horses. This is python-ideas@ after all, not pep-lawyering@.
I noticed you wouldn't take the bet too.