Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111195
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CABHuAWx16_6rwye6BC4gUctSEdTTV0bq68S=1znNPykwGzXTsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABHuAWwETC=oJ4TWdkZ8sEW1ZbMp08YAZj3HMhH9UqG0J=eoxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0bba3669-ce0a-068e-d3ed-28fa5605e03f@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:32:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABHuAWwETC=oJ4TWdkZ8sEW1ZbMp08YAZj3HMhH9UqG0J=eoxw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][Proposal] Renamed parameters
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

Hi Chris,


On 26/07/2020 14:52, Chris Riley wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback so far. In light of the feedback received both here
> and privately, I've made 3 changes to the RFC document


Firstly, a reminder of the guideline in the RFC howto that the link to 
the RFC should be included in replies, which is particularly relevant 
when announcing changes to the text. For others trying to find it, it is 
here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/renamed_parameters


Secondly, regardless of the merits of your proposal in itself, I think 
an RFC in this position should explicitly state why it is proposing to 
re-visit an accepted feature. I can think of a handful of possible 
reasons, but none seem to apply:

- If new concerns have come to light which are likely to change the 
opinion of those who voted Yes. This is not the case for the concerns in 
your introduction.
- If the RFC passed only by a narrow margin, or a low turnout, and this 
version is expected to gain a larger majority. The RFC passed with a 
ratio of 3:1, with 75 votes cast [1].
- If the RFC discussion was rushed, so that people did not have adequate 
time to understand the proposal and discuss its implications. The RFC 
was informally resurrected at the start of April [2] and formally at the 
start of May [3] and saw plenty of discussion.
- If there is evidence that people voted Yes despite reservations that 
this proposal resolves. No evidence is presented of this, and the only 
message of that sort in the voting thread expressed reservations 
unrelated to this proposal. [4]
- If there is evidence that (a significant number of) people who voted 
Yes have now changed their minds having re-considered the implications. 
No evidence is presented of this.


As Benjamin says, the pragmatic way forward would be to discuss 
enhancements on top of the accepted feature, rather than last-minute 
alternatives to it.


[1] This appears to be the second highest turnout after Scalar Type 
Declarations, according to https://php-rfc-watch.beberlei.de/
[2] https://externals.io/message/109549
[3] https://externals.io/message/110004
[4] https://externals.io/message/110910#110961

Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins (né Collins)
[IMSoP]