Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111493
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
CC: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
Thread-Index: AQHWbvIBydbCX+rhJUWK/r8c7hnlt6k0kNaHgAALBwCAAAp7tQ==
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 16:36:19 +0000
Message-ID:
 <BYAPR05MB65356FCC029CD06F49F528A0DE420@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References:
 <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2008100935570.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <BYAPR05MB65355FFBB6717491995EEBF4DE420@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>,<CAESVnVqraG9V4VMrxrv5AOFX5Jt7Cx0-uo5L0doQEWcUVOdHkg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:
 <CAESVnVqraG9V4VMrxrv5AOFX5Jt7Cx0-uo5L0doQEWcUVOdHkg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-tmn: [AqPSR3LvPMTzZ4LpfsvB2jmfYejc1nCh]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-incomingheadercount: 45
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ed993b9a-74dd-4cd9-4736-08d83eddd76e
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6NAM11HT235:
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info:
 WacsPkT2ZANdVgC+ZL8a1K+Sxz7mbOOstOaPOKcKxD1vE6/Ks0YZtq/qVFLrrpdphDXIBuV47HcaL7hCoyBMId2hXn/YG9cRjXDmXDIVn0mo+JvAazDUvWQuq3l53N4OcuxXvm//WU4Q+EWCfqHRz4fYD+i3kMoJb6miRFS+3xG/SUv3MQ/bZJnHFbCfTBdnFhFNI3yAafEbamM8i0srcBFpgkruy8XxM6GW7whAQf8/nYFXUpQD5z4Flx2mF4Uo
x-forefront-antispam-report:
 CIP:255.255.255.255;CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:0;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE;SFTY:;SFS:;DIR:OUT;SFP:1901;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata:
 XF+dJBG4LL4VLrbwxzz8ZU03eEsPgGWGh8CDGuxxUzC/Ys6U+ejuYKnGFc9WVcXQOUyQmwx4wRB7XntQycaFb1M1dw3V/FRKy/5NJ2rDDydAfepcw7CXTQ+qXAsOPS9xqULzB4E3NLht2oBKYFSxpA==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6NAM11FT023.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ed993b9a-74dd-4cd9-4736-08d83eddd76e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Aug 2020 16:36:19.5628
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6NAM11HT235
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
From: theodorejb@outlook.com (Theodore Brown)

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:25 AM Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:=0A=
=0A=
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:48 AM Theodore Brown wrote:=0A=
> =0A=
> > It has just come to my attention that this RFC was rushed to vote=0A=
> > after less than the minimum two week period required after it was=0A=
> > brought up on list. Furthermore, discussion was still very active at=0A=
> > that time - I certainly didn't have a chance to respond to some of=0A=
> > the emails before voting began.=0A=
> > =0A=
> > Joe first announced this RFC on Tuesday, July 28 at 9:47 AM, and the=0A=
> > vote was started this Monday at 3:41 AM, less than 12 days, 18 hours=0A=
> > after the announcement. Per the voting rules:=0A=
> =0A=
> So, 30 hours short of 2 weeks. I'm going to ascribe good intentions=0A=
> in trying to get the issue resolved in the minimal timeframe. The=0A=
> fact active discussion was ongoing makes this a questionable choice, =0A=
> but in my opinion, purely on a matter of time, quibbling over 30 hours=0A=
> is splitting hairs. Maybe compromise on adding time to the vote end=0A=
> period so that the total is greater than 4 weeks?=0A=
> =0A=
> > What should be done to prevent this rule from being violated?=0A=
> =0A=
> Vigilance. You're right to raise the concern. And let's wag a finger =0A=
> over it at least. If others agree that it's premature, we can stop=0A=
> the vote, but I'm not inclined to disrupt the process over such a=0A=
> small variance.=0A=
=0A=
On top of violating the minimum two week discussion period, I believe=0A=
this RFC also breaks the rule on resurrecting failed proposals. When=0A=
I authored the Shorter Attribute Syntax RFC, I specifically did not=0A=
include a voting option for `@:`, since this syntax was declined,=0A=
and my understanding was that a six month waiting period is required=0A=
before resurrecting rejected proposals. [1]=0A=
=0A=
But if we can vote again on `#[]` and `<<>>` after they were declined,=0A=
why can't we also vote again for `@:`? This syntax has the advantage=0A=
of being equally short as `@@` without any BC break.=0A=
=0A=
I'm really disappointed and disillusioned with how the process has=0A=
been handled for this RFC. It seems like the rules are arbitrarily=0A=
going out the window in order to keep voting until the desired result=0A=
is reached.=0A=
=0A=
What is the point of having rules if they aren't followed or enforced? =0A=
If anyone else is troubled by the precedent being set by this RFC, =0A=
please vote No on the primary vote. I'm not sure what other recourse=0A=
we have at this point.=0A=
=0A=
Sincerely,  =0A=
Theodore=0A=
=0A=
[1]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting#resurrecting_rejected_proposals=