> the lack of clarity on the criteria for inclusion, as well as the constant goal post moving This is where I think Sam is being unfair. He's asking for a brea

> the lack of clarity on the criteria for inclusion, as well as the constant goal post moving This is where I think Sam is being unfair. He's asking for a breaking change. For 25 years, CPython has consistently and clearly said that they fully support no-gil in other implementations, and have a minimum criteria of no performance regressions for CPython. He made his performance demonstration before getting real buy-in. I understand he made that choice because of how his funding works, and now he's desperate to get a result. They acknowledged his demo and said they're considering it. Lashing out and accusing them of unclear criteria and moving goalposts misrepresents the situation. It's not his decision to risk burning the community on a breaking change. He knows they haven't decided on it. It's reasonable to expect someone to do that work. He hasn't done it, so they will have to do it. The steering committee also has to consider how this change will impact pursuing other goals. It doesn't exist in a vacuum all by itself. They reiterated that they do in fact want to remove the gil, even after noting how much work it will be to do due diligence. They've also said they want to take in big projects like creating a JIT. Seems to me like effort itself isn't an issue. By calling it a fork, coming from the steering committee, they're saying either the transition plan is non-existent, or it's the wrong design for their goals, or it's coming at a bad time. Maybe all of them. His task was to convince the committee to remove the gil. He interpreted that as simply doing a technical demonstration. Not sure why, especially given the history.