You're getting downvoted for what seems like a harsh policy. I think it's definitely understandable that most people want to make the switch as easy as possible

You're getting downvoted for what seems like a harsh policy. I think it's definitely understandable that most people want to make the switch as easy as possible, and that's the reason for the delay in discontinuing Python 2. But I would make the case like this: The slow approach failed. Chances are, most Python 2 code was written after 2010. By switching earlier, yes, you make the switch harder for the handful of people who actually did port their code, but on the other hand you avoid the exact same porting difficulties for many more because the majority of Python 2 code would never have been written! Someone upthread mentioned scientists, for example, who were still writing their analysis code in the late 2010s and are now confused about why none of it runs. To be sure, it's worth thinking about why it failed, as many other projects have been able to get away with a longer deprecation periods. But its seems like there is a case to be made, in pure consequentialist terms, that Python would have been better off killing Python 2 earlier.