I approved DIP1036e

[claptrap]

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 12:28:31 UTC, M.M. wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 11:40:31 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>>
>>> In all the discussions, Walter always argues technical 
>>> points, he never abuses or name calls people or attacks them 
>>> personally.
>>
>> Look, the reason there are two people to review the DIPs is so 
>> that Walter doesn't get to review his own DIPs. That process 
>> was set up to avoid conflict of interest.
>
> I understand your desire to have Walter more explicitly 
> detached from decisions about his own DIPs. But, you are aware 
> that DIP1027 was rejected, right?

Yes but it was resurrected in response to the thread about 1036. 
It would be like arriving in court for a custody hearing only to 
find out the judge is in a relationship with your ex wife.

It should have not have happened like that.

It beggars belief that nobody seems to understand that.