Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111504
To: internals@lists.php.net, theodorejb@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>
 <BYAPR05MB65356FCC029CD06F49F528A0DE420@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <CABdc3WobP1HSRwcujd4=o4wv3QUp7gDT12KmMRQU1_wLj4YLuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <BYAPR05MB65351C807797676BB08D8BDCDE430@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <5cc837df-ab47-628a-d29b-46d7933be973@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 15:47:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR05MB65351C807797676BB08D8BDCDE430@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
From: a.leathley@gmx.net (Andreas Leathley)

On 13.08.20 15:17, Theodore Brown wrote:
> The discussion thread you're referencing did not announce an RFC. Per
> the voting rules, a "Proposal is formally initiated by creating an
> RFC on PHP wiki and announcing it on the list". After that there must
> be a minimum two week discussion period before voting starts. The
> Shorter Attribute Syntax Change RFC failed to meet this requirement.

After reading https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto it is stated clearly there
that an RFC has to be created and be "Under Discussion" for at least two
weeks. So you were actually wrong that the RFC was one day early - it
was at least 8 days early, as the RFC was created and announced on the
4th of August and then put to vote on the 10th of August.

It also states in this document:

  * Listen to the feedback, and try to answer/resolve all questions
  * Update your RFC to document all the issues and discussions
  * Cover both the positive and negative arguments

Can anybody say with a straight face that this has been done in this
case? Just one example: It still states in the RFC that the ending
symbol is inconsistent with the language, although multiple people
argued another viewpoint about this part with detailed explanations.
This kind of discussion belongs in an RFC to show both sides, not just
the one that suits the person writing the RFC.