Is this editorial?

Not sure, if this was LWG then I would close it.

Well, to be editorial the change cannot change the normative meaning of the text, first and foremost. I don't know whether the proposed new text is equivalent to the existing one, or if you're proposing a (simplifying) change of the observable specification. Can you elaborate?

IIUC the idea is: these maybe-const<Const, Views> appear in the right operand of requires Const && stuff, so they are only used when Const is true, so they are equivalent to maybe-const<true, Views>, which is the same as const Views.

I believe this has no normative impact. The requires clause will short circuit so that if Const is false, we never try to check the convertible_to constraint, and so it doesn't matter whether we use iterator_t<X> or iterator<const X> as it will not even be instantiated. So the constraint using iterator_t<const X> is only checked when Const is true, in which case maybe-const would have added the const anyway.

So I think this is a valid editorial simplification.

Edit: i.e. what cpplearner said at the same time.

OK, thanks!

In that case, can you please review if any of the linebreaks can now go away?