This sounds like you're arguing against pride in your work. I don't see a problem with feeling a little ownership in a project you may have contributed weeks or months of your time to.
I don' t see where "pride" is served by creating submissions to PG that don't work on a large variety of the ebook readers which real customers own and would like to use. If that be "pride" then at least give the rest of us a reasonable workaround where you can still be "proud" that your submission only works on a *nix 13.2" diagonal desktop screen, and the rest of us are still allowed to create a version of the same *risen to the public domain* book which is in fact suitable to be read on most customers' ebook reader devices.
On the contrary, if there's a problem, I'd be more likely to want it fixed if I'm associated with it. But more to the point, where to you see anything resembling a "won't fix" attitude?
I've been talking about this for years. Most PG submissions simply do not work when one attempts to read them on real world real customer ebook reader devices, and most of these problems CAN quickly and easily be fixed with a few minutes work. If a problem can be quickly and easily fixed but in fact never is "fixed" then what could possibly be more indicative of a "won't fix" attitude?
You have a much different view of the activity than I do. And I also think good typesetting involves quite a bit of artistry. But again, how could one use pride in their work to excuse doing it badly?
Read the DP threads on this matter where a bunch of DP formatter types say "If you make me write HTML that runs on ebook readers well then I quit!" That IS pride being used as an" excuse to do it badly." The "artist" is the person who wrote the book. The typesetter is just a technician, albeit ideally a skilled one, whose job it is to allow the real "artist's" work to actually be successfully and pleasantly read where and when real customers want to read it. But how can typesetting which causes a book to displayed in a "scrambled eggs" manner which ignores all the rules of typesetting for the last 560 years be considered "artistry?" Much of the HTML submitted to PG is complete hackery motivated by personal vanity, by people who claim they know HTML, but who do not. And again, this wouldn't be a problem, if PG would simply fix the problems where there are problems. But PG won't do this because PG has passed "ownership" to the self-proclaimed HTML "ar-teest" -- who is in fact just a dime store hacker. And this decision to pass "ownership" back to the HTML hacker "ar-teest" effectively turns "risen to the public domain" works back into private ownership -- just the exact opposite to the goals PG pretends to uphold!