I approved DIP1036e

[claptrap]

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 14:06:28 UTC, M.M. wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 12:41:17 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>
>>>
> I personally thought that the discussion could have been 
> swifter (but then again, we would perhaps end up with DIP1036 
> instead of DIP1036e)

I agree with most of what you've said.

However when someone says, "yes it was acrimonious but at least 
it led to a better DIP" they're brushing over fact that it could 
have been handled differently at still got the same result.

If youre telling youself the ends justify the means then you 
better think harder about what your doing.