Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111507 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 67119 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2020 16:44:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 13 Aug 2020 16:44:36 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C14D1804AC for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 08:44:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092004058.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.4.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=oTjGroi/5R7QG7WX+FXJ5y6ajWWabOKNDjKycR/fjl4xsfE94BeerRhS0M6aZ1Krn8f3Kj7LirsSChADsf1H5soKW3qx45mlIv4dCiOTBe/ggl1xDUHAu2W5ni40DF/B/O5RwCe4l6AZFCrEH+TJPSmpyfBT0xSm7fONTEHGjEGs+22ov5KHDGVtYiu02HeqHtWTW5Hvav5qQALjX0JgQWdZO3Upt2WvwdeT1D7/vw5Ph3mEeevEEFOeNmlxrnbGEP/AJpuU2Pvo9NWB5LioSFy4D3zqF8dx2fKv+/5h9dOILkexJbuRaWHFT/ruLr60HggxMsmLMtU19eDFSVpCJQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=y+Xg6F0BIgxvKH+56LqWw2BjJ8fqSjYbRR3G/Y4D7Cs=; b=HJvxW3Ry9fy2j4JvIcmEeFR44y6WtvSsqBrXDi57RiaP7PhI0obwZfW+xdqsKvasvExtet+5uDDa587lN8yCtOaQx8D13F/DPWynHlHhcxHMAf7cyLZRv8UEphAwlB7X6hotigFW+wt07sMHQrgP+WOBwtJaX4N9jdDHprwvO8ifNcAAvtTiy6RhfAUQpaXebhQAu6qToYb/HJ0afwMKFiqgyHucdV0ZoOiH/NO4z2uZncamVHRynk76T/NZ9M7z5BofDtJQEuQap4rrC0huo6M1zUUsj6lpF7806L0W1MHo5k/1eHtzQBiuBIel9IzPA85qc45CvPHtfHrsmYC1cQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=y+Xg6F0BIgxvKH+56LqWw2BjJ8fqSjYbRR3G/Y4D7Cs=; b=NQgoKJstqyJ7BGbyGIRGlScKaQWruz1bue2Ljo4kwi/8wYFY1JWGu3pbp2NE1fneQM89w8bmGZthkccznZJylaIaTX2YDwM/2E2v+KzCoVV+6qknizIOIJBZdW+hDi6KCxHMeC1Cfe4FP3bwnBNYEGWNBZVZav6RVZz+h9/YjWtaAFfvQ4NO+KlEEFS9CBVpLWBoWhswJ/8wPMnyJ+M/HHOXOU3eBsK53S1Q7dS0unVTa5bbimkcP13Eyk4Jq50CIFW6eCwncDpAZj4rk2MQCDghDtBHSnUk4dzq/i2QzbqcfELwVzhjoAhcISG6l3t6hOOJATPy5r/RZM563xQxug== Received: from CY1NAM02FT029.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.74.56) by CY1NAM02HT090.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.75.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3283.16; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 15:44:29 +0000 Received: from BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7e45::41) by CY1NAM02FT029.mail.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7e45::399) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3283.16 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 15:44:29 +0000 Received: from BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fc6c:38b0:fa18:f355]) by BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::fc6c:38b0:fa18:f355%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3283.014; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 15:44:29 +0000 To: Andreas Leathley , "internals@lists.php.net" , Sara Golemon , "carusogabriel@php.net" Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change Thread-Index: AQHWbvIBydbCX+rhJUWK/r8c7hnlt6k0kNaHgAALBwCAAAp7tYABDvUAgABUQtmAAAkjgIAAH1r+ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 15:44:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: ,<5cc837df-ab47-628a-d29b-46d7933be973@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <5cc837df-ab47-628a-d29b-46d7933be973@gmx.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:110C92293FE5C003561FE8848F2AC23C4AC12E83B1D7554CD9DAFBCE0A8693B5;UpperCasedChecksum:3384E5952A5924559AF11F7B4DABD965F7133FDB3244A190EFE6A51688C5FED2;SizeAsReceived:7472;Count:44 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-tmn: [AiTF/iS/v/ihKUOYClwDO4UDHDdYNuBJ] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-incomingheadercount: 44 x-eopattributedmessage: 0 x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f644168c-41f9-437c-fb83-08d83f9fc3e8 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY1NAM02HT090: x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; 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;SFS:;DIR:OUT;SFP:1901; 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: CY1NAM02FT029.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f644168c-41f9-437c-fb83-08d83f9fc3e8 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Aug 2020 15:44:29.1111 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1NAM02HT090 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change From: theodorejb@outlook.com (Theodore Brown) On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 8:47 AM Andreas Leathley wrote= :=0A= =0A= > On 13.08.20 15:17, Theodore Brown wrote:=0A= > > The discussion thread you're referencing did not announce an RFC. Per= =0A= > > the voting rules, a "Proposal is formally initiated by creating an=0A= > > RFC on PHP wiki and announcing it on the list". After that there must= =0A= > > be a minimum two week discussion period before voting starts. The=0A= > > Shorter Attribute Syntax Change RFC failed to meet this requirement.=0A= > =0A= > After reading https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto it is stated clearly there= =0A= > that an RFC has to be created and be "Under Discussion" for at least two= =0A= > weeks. So you were actually wrong that the RFC was one day early - it=0A= > was at least 8 days early, as the RFC was created and announced on the=0A= > 4th of August and then put to vote on the 10th of August.=0A= =0A= Indeed, it looks like you are right. I missed that Joe withdrew his=0A= RFC on August 2nd: https://externals.io/message/111218#111288. The=0A= declined RFC can still be viewed via a past page revision. [1]=0A= =0A= Apparently Derick then authored a new proposal under the same wiki=0A= URL and moved it under discussion on August 4th, with a request that=0A= people submit patches for other syntax alternatives to include in the=0A= vote. [2] So the first date this RFC could be eligible for voting is=0A= Tuesday August 18th.=0A= =0A= Sara and Gabriel, can you confirm this is the case?=0A= =0A= The RFC was then moved to voting on August 10th, less than a week=0A= later, before there was a reasonable period to submit patches, and=0A= while there was still significant ongoing and unresolved discussion.=0A= =0A= > It also states in this document:=0A= > =0A= > * Listen to the feedback, and try to answer/resolve all questions=0A= > * Update your RFC to document all the issues and discussions=0A= > * Cover both the positive and negative arguments=0A= > =0A= > Can anybody say with a straight face that this has been done in this=0A= > case? Just one example: It still states in the RFC that the ending=0A= > symbol is inconsistent with the language, although multiple people=0A= > argued another viewpoint about this part with detailed explanations.=0A= > This kind of discussion belongs in an RFC to show both sides, not=0A= > just the one that suits the person writing the RFC.=0A= =0A= Hear, hear. If we must vote again on the syntax, can the RFC at least=0A= fairly present all the pros and cons for each alternative (including=0A= details about the BC breaks), with a discussion section summarizing=0A= the viewpoints brought up on list? This is what I attempted to do in=0A= the original Shorter Attribute Syntax RFC. [3]=0A= =0A= Best regards, =0A= Theodore=0A= =0A= [1]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax_change?rev=3D1596407= 928=0A= [2]: https://externals.io/message/111312#111312=0A= [3]: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/shorter_attribute_syntax#alternative_syntax=