Kind Regards,

Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:19 PM Chris Angelico <> wrote:
PEPs don't get updated as future requirements cause changes in the
language. They remain as they were: the proposal. Changing the name
because of a change in the PEP's metadata seems like a very backwards
way to do things; among other things, it would lead people to consider
"PAPs" to be somehow authorative while "PEPs" are not, which would
leave informational and process PEPs in an awkward situation of being
neither non-accepted nor accepted,

I referred PEP8, a meta-pep as PAP8 in the first mail itself and should have 
been one of the first tripping lines of the discussion. If such PEPs are included
under PAPs, the 'authorative' point holds as it should be
 Additionally, changing the *name* of a document
means that every reference has to be changed, 

I guess you mean on the website itself. It's a nice point which i was expecting.
As with any change, some changes are expected and if i am not mistaken,
the source is some text documents and updating them means running  a script
over them locally. 
The only advantage you've offered is some relatively weak notion that
it ceases to be a proposal once it's accepted, and since "PAP" would
still have the word "Proposal" in it, you're not really even changing

>  All law projects remain law projects. But we
call law projects which has been accepted as law.

Let's not waste everyone's time for zero benefit. Thanks.

PEP editor who really doesn't feel like trying to support two names
for the same things

If we change even past accepted PEPs it's one name for one thing.
The thread dying off is in itself a sign  that the idea is weak and
does not hold much value. But if someone brings a point that would re-start
the discussion i think it's better to notify him. I'm good if the thread dies
off without any further input than rebringing what has already been told.