Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111488
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2008100935570.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <BYAPR05MB65355FFBB6717491995EEBF4DE420@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB65355FFBB6717491995EEBF4DE420@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 10:25:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CAESVnVqraG9V4VMrxrv5AOFX5Jt7Cx0-uo5L0doQEWcUVOdHkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Theodore Brown <theodorejb@outlook.com>
Cc: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, 
	Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a8e89a05acafcea2"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
From: pollita@php.net (Sara Golemon)

--000000000000a8e89a05acafcea2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:48 AM Theodore Brown <theodorejb@outlook.com>
wrote:

> It has just come to my attention that this RFC was rushed to vote
> after less than the minimum two week period required after it was
> brought up on list. Furthermore, discussion was still very active at
> that time - I certainly didn't have a chance to respond to some of
> the emails before voting began.
>
> Joe first announced this RFC on Tuesday, July 28 at 9:47 AM, and the
> vote was started this Monday at 3:41 AM, less than 12 days, 18 hours
> after the announcement. Per the voting rules:
>
>
So, 30 hours short of 2 weeks.  I'm going to ascribe good intentions in
trying to get the issue resolved in the minimal timeframe.  The fact active
discussion was ongoing makes this a questionable choice, but in my opinion,
purely on a matter of time, quibbling over 30 hours is splitting hairs.
 Maybe compromise on adding time to the vote end period so that the total
is greater than 4 weeks?


> What should be done to prevent this rule from being violated?
>
>
Vigilance.  You're right to raise the concern.  And let's wag a finger over
it at least.  If others agree that it's premature, we can stop the vote,
but I'm not inclined to disrupt the process over such a small variance.



> Also, I still don't understand why this RFC has a special exemption
> to the feature freeze deadline, given that the whole basis for it
> (a supposed lack of consistency) is at best a subjective opinion.
>
>
Changing the syntax isn't a feature. It's a refinement.  One of the things
our long release process provides is a chance to be absolutely certain
before we introduce syntax we'll come to regret later.

-Sara

--000000000000a8e89a05acafcea2--