> Unless you're suggesting that LTS enterprise support offerings should co-ordinate additional feature work on python 2, which is both unusual and again I claim

> Unless you're suggesting that LTS enterprise support offerings should co-ordinate additional feature work on python 2, which is both unusual and again I claim actively harmful to the ecosystem. If you have a large amount of Python 2 code that doesn't make sense to rewrite as Python 3 but does make sense to keep developing as opposed to just keep running as-is, it makes sense to want compatibility-preserving improvements to the language. That such improvements are considered actively harmful comes from a point of view where there's a top-down imperative to shut down Python 2 in order to make Python 3 succeed. It's not harmful from the point of view of the code people have written in Python 2 being valuable. The notion that there user community needs to work for Python (by porting to Python 3) and that Python 2 needs to be shut down as opposed to Python development valuing the existing code that had been developed is the core problem with Python 3.