Well apparently it's not heavily enough used that any of its current users were motivated enough to discuss the PEP and make a strong case for keeping it in the standard library. The discussion was open for _three years_ and had hundreds of comments: https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-594-removing-dead-batteries... The outcome is that there isn't enough usage to merit this being in the standard library.
I suspect there's very little overlap between users of development software and participants in the bureaucracy that designs the software. The requisite personality types are very different.
If you're developing software that depends on a python standard library it is on you to subscribe to the relevant mailing lists so you can be notified of security issues, deprecations, changes, etc. There is not bureaucracy here to be aware of what's happening, or even comment on the changes.
Years ago I used to do that. But nowadays I use so much external stuff it's impossible. So I'm actually immensely grateful to the Python team for including so much in the Standard Library and maintaining it for decades - because for me, at least until now, it's been that one part where I could relax a bit about and be confident that competent people will take care of everything and I won't need to spend much time analyzing the situation.
Seems to me that this is exactly the problem. The python team is saying they really can't maintain these libraries to a high standard and need to remove them from the standard library. I can see both sides but really that makes a lot of sense to me.
Is my comment. It's the 6th comment down. Clearly I didn't make a strong enough case, but I certainly did advocate for it and mention that it is in use.
