I guess I don't understand why you consider the discussion of names any more useless or tiresome than the discussion of any other aspect, e.g. whether to restrict a protocol to classes only, or whether Hashable should be a struct or a protocol. But to address your specific proposal in the original post:
- Confining certain types of discussion to pitch phase only is a non-starter in my opinion. People don't have unlimited time, and many may only contribute to proposal discussions.
- Encouraging people to “stick to their guns” can only harm the building of consensus, and changing your mind is a positive thing, not a negative thing.
- The core team have restarted providing feedback during a pitch lately, so hopefully they can step in sometimes and break deadlocked discussions. As you mention though, sometimes they ask for feedback about names which I guess is only negative from your naming-averse perspective.
Edit: Did you somehow start three separate threads about essentially exactly the same issue? If you're looking for people wasting everyone's time, perhaps find a mirror.