No, language features, standard library modules, infrastructure implementations, standard APIs, development and community processes, etc. etc. aren’t “up to the reader to interpret”, aren’t “basically meaningless”, aren’t “toothless”, especially not “at this point”. Informational PEPs are informational.
python-committers also aren’t a misaligned minority of the community. If you feel committers don’t serve your interest, step up and start contributing.
I think PEPs, RFCs, and formal processes are designed to keep structure and discipline. It may sound like unnecessary beauracracy but you see this in PostgreSQL development process as well. Vast number of critical pieces of software is developed by this process - from Linux to proprietary software in large companies such as Apple, Morgan Stanley and many many more.
Is this process actually fundamentally better? There are so many PEPs that are up to the reader to interpret. There are so many PEPs that contradict each other (just read some of the early PEPs). The whole thing feels basically meaningless, and toothless at this point.
I think Go's proposal process nails balancing formalities and discussion/bikeshedding. They seem to be very productive at making the language better, thinking critically and avoiding regrets, rather than pandering to the very vocal and often misaligned minority of the community.