Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111530 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 70703 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2020 10:54:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2020 10:54:16 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B41180502 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 02:54:40 -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,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-ot1-f42.google.com (mail-ot1-f42.google.com [209.85.210.42]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 02:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-f42.google.com with SMTP id k12so9570289otr.1 for ; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 02:54:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DV5nL1+qYV14y0BmVVeH6My5iicsjittRTn5alnNWjI=; b=GV/PSBwu04LsweHyJ9RLYdAMTAeRryiZpcq/unP98LpSYFqc2rxdVdyqVpOAD0GepY cgO3s/qQd7Otg4KBO7D8/5lawCDzdhbWpbQNX02741/OPzdRAbyfcPYhoSOBbyUDUSXi 2vrgCDA7RIXCsVfkYYxiFQU1DXABBcdOAtwpfmQky0ISYorOx+lB9aP8BvoUijKh7maf HboevoCN0ElxdI4ADbzKXUuDOz5YGuIsch+viYITiysMkRies66qEkvzE3PR1YirMzxa R1TwUwFLLd3f0+oZafvN4STfO5Sa7e2u6S+8LE72jfiwF/Ey+tV//nT1RO+sH4TPAvhx Qb0A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DV5nL1+qYV14y0BmVVeH6My5iicsjittRTn5alnNWjI=; b=ZIOPhSzFo6J6HBE+YF2mmhqqsbJiIi5id51eNqc4O4btkW7hh6tOhwNX7wY1Fhopfy Noj1Tu8jggjbpMK5IN3gMlrAIfgzZUsStEi3897m+qh08T38fUBD6hOsvqQf5B+vfsRM 3ZyL1ycKHTR9EOugKCveotnT6w9zSM6EyRBcTvi4gSSws331TmUU6cxU4cTfhNpc28bu YTJfB26ckfvOsRd/gVdpY/P1dgtX1NxV8rKv+dU42UeDIEbg2HPOcQStf77TJ7Ky4Nvj 22ZVu6uv24LDzqrKF5uFM7ylJliIbb+ZadBTn7IfalBGI8Jnn8HynAsHfy6ixwdL1aK9 xE4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5331IdxpDYtiab0vkggjWWnppDz2hXPjgry8zneYAbIdKPRqftN6 Gy0GpmJi3S+bsT0AKKF/kFQis7N+gAdNys44sKY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxZxeSsAMn5Ia8HLE4rY9s4GJKF6MdLVtoMhl4JkvM2/4nx0cMn/L/DQ7XYtRH4HA2Xw87OpFrV2vXjUNPthmg= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:77d4:: with SMTP id w20mr4516474otl.182.1597485275780; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 02:54:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5cc837df-ab47-628a-d29b-46d7933be973@gmx.net> <3A7CECC3-CDEE-4852-BF4B-4EC7CA1BD538@pmjones.io> In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 11:54:22 +0200 Message-ID: To: Theodore Brown Cc: Derick Rethans , Sara Golemon , Benjamin Eberlei , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000659f5805ace78645" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change From: michal.brzuchalski@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_Marcin_Brzuchalski?=) --000000000000659f5805ace78645 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Theodore, pt., 14 sie 2020, 22:16 u=C5=BCytkownik Theodore Brown napisa=C5=82: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 2:23 PM Derick Rethans wrote: > > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, Sara Golemon wrote: > > > > > > Derick and Benjamin (and Sara), are these requests reasonable? If > > > > the RFC follows the discussion period rule and contains all the > > > > relevant information, I will be much more confident that it is > > > > resulting in the best long term outcome (and I think this would > > > > speak for many others on list as well). > > > > > > Honestly, the current end date is fine, because the intent of the rul= e > > > is met. However, I do like that you're seeking a solution which help= s > > > to put concerns to rest. > > > > > > The only part which irks me is that we have 50-some votes already cas= t > > > that would be thrown out and have to be redone, and that's on what is > > > already the 3rd vote on this syntax. > > > > > > I'm vote fatigued, personally. However, we're going to have to live > > > with this syntax forever once it's out, so we should believe that we > > > believe in it. > > > > As I've said, I have no problems with *extending* the time by the week > > and a bit that I missed. I disagree about having to stop, wipe, and > > revote. As you said, vote fatigue. > > Hi Derick and Sara, > > I don't think it's reasonable to simply extend the period, when the > RFC has been significantly updated to include important details that > were missing when most people cast their vote. Otherwise the vote > result does not reflect the contents of the RFC, and therefore cannot > be considered valid. > > If vote fatigue is really the most important consideration here, > would this RFC have been brought to vote in the first place? > I don't think there's anything significant changed in the RFC. I really doubt the vote result will change significantly. Currently you're the only one who wants to wipe the vote and there is no much voices willing to follow your proposal. Personally I think extending the vote by additional week is fair enough. Cheers, Micha=C5=82 Marcin Brzuchalski > --000000000000659f5805ace78645--