Kartik Prabhu
Peter,
Being from a GR background, I agree that it is very convenient to work in the mostly plus signature and being in Chicago I’ll skip the East/West dichotomy! :)
* I am not sure what significance one should attach to “Wick rotation” or analytic continuation procedures employed in textbook QFT. Those work only in analytic and static/stationary spacetimes, which again from a GR perspective is highly restrictive.
* Yes, one can do 2-component spinor notation in either signature if one wants to carry around the “sigma matrices”. Penrose’s notation gets rid of the sigma matrices entirely ( See: Spinors and Spacetime Vol1 — Penrose & Rindler ) and one can write equations like g_ab = \epsilon_AB \epsilon_A′B′ which works only in the mostly minus signature. If using a mostly plus signature this would have a minus sign which is very inconvenient. So this notation by Penrose sacrifices the goodness of the mostly plus metric for the goodness of skipping sigma matrices entirely, which is also the convention Wald uses. I have also seen Bob Geroch use this notation in his lectures. In the http://www.niu.edu/spmartin/spinors/ link that you cite this corresponds to their Eq.2.48 which does have a sign change when changing the metric signature.
* I still don’t understand the physical significance (if any) of pinors. As far as I have seen, physics theories only use spinors and the Spin group in which case this sign choice is irrelevant.
* Again, I am pretty skeptical of the importance of analytic continuation to physics in general.