I agree. And the next section is very clear that they want to kill the project.

  > For example, rather than proposing one single concrete JIT implementation,
  > it may make more sense for the PEP to describe a JIT infrastructure that
  > can support multiple implementation strategies.
  > Since many different and promising JIT tracing approaches continue to be proposed,
  > we believe the infrastructure should make it easy to experiment with and evaluate
  > those approaches within CPython rather than be highly coupled with a single strategy.

Allowing multiple strategies is far harder and as far as I know, JIT tracing is still unproven.

I think this is uncharitable, it's not like they're inventing new requirements that weren't there before. The PEP process has existed the whole time.

I suspect there were people who had alternative proposals which got implicitly blocked by this 5 year effort. Letting a subgroup run wild without proper process is not good for a project this large.