Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:119468
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH5C8xWsBsuzJ-7xwisUZxY+kxSmh-PhkAkPWh68c=qDs=nLrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAwdEzC6e2o9dyV4Y_Z73Cz2cmN5rbh7Mc4WXtbZt_zZAvJaSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH5C8xX_JjdF-7PHHAiTP_Jy73MyBWzJbQxt4LV6Qtajxd8Zug@mail.gmail.com> <CAKWdMujGDSkR3ksKT5uK+LUVa_REf=Oq7-vTSEWF+8DWgy46yQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKWdMujGDSkR3ksKT5uK+LUVa_REf=Oq7-vTSEWF+8DWgy46yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2023 15:33:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+kxMuTLG-AgVm6a6FG7v=aZMByDf=VkKZPeLaiM8qOCazKhNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Niebergall <mbniebergall@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TcOhdMOpIEtvY3Npcw==?= <kocsismate90@gmail.com>, 
	=?UTF-8?Q?Alexandru_P=C4=83tr=C4=83nescu?= <drealecs@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] Typed class constants
From: Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)

Hi Mark,

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 00:22, Mark Niebergall <mbniebergall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is also a bigger policy question for other seemingly-abandoned
> RFCs. If it is agreed that a new RFC should be created in this scenario,

I've added some notes on the page https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto

I had some words already prepared from something I will post
separately, but may as well post here also:

Mailing list etiquette -
https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/master/etiquette/mailing_list.md

Mailing list etiquette for young'uns -
https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/master/etiquette/mailing_list_for_younguns.md

RFC attitudes -
https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/master/etiquette/rfc_attitudes.md

RFC etiquette -
https://github.com/Danack/RfcCodex/blob/master/etiquette/rfc_etiquette.md

Most of the stuff in there is just etiquette rather than rules, so
probably isn't appropriate for the wiki.


> I did leave Benas as an author to give him credit for the work he did.

Although well intentioned, that's probably quite a no-no. Putting
someone's name on something they don't necessarily agree with is
likely to cause drama. I've added a note on that also.

> With the reverting, valuable community input was dismissed. An effort should
> be made to address applicable previous community input instead of just
> reverting it out.

Probably not.

It's up to other people to persuade RFC authors why something should
be included, rather than RFC authors having to take time and energy to
justify why they are reverting unapproved edits to their RFC.

But yep, if you want to do it as part of a separate RFC, go for it.

cheers
Dan
Ack